Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Poly Relationships Corner

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-12-2013, 08:36 PM
lolalondon lolalondon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 30
Unhappy

Hi BirthofVenus

No, you haven't offended me. This came at a sad time for me because I've told him I can't be in a long-term relationship with him any more this afternoon, but I will answer your points as I don't feel I've explained fully...

His line of work means he doesn't finish until 10pm and doesn't get home until 11pm every week night. He already sees her Wednesday nights, so any additional time they spend together will have to be over the weekend to be quality time. So it directly takes away from our time together, since on week nights we don't see each other it's too late for him to see anyone really. But it's hardly "quality time" for us either. Coupled with the fact that he also often works weekend giving private lessons (he's a martial arts trainer) he has very limited time anyway. I have agreed to him spending more nights per week with her and this has directly meant us seeing each other less. So I can't see how I've been abusive.

He wouldn't be able to provide for anyone - he gets by but has no savings. I'm more financially secure than he is, and we go halves on everything. I would be willing to see him more often but he now says that even if we live together he struggles spending so long with one person (regardless of poly - this is to do with his ADHD) and gets very agitated and tense and feels trapped and so he doesn't think we can ever live together and have a set up which allows for companionship and some lever of domesticity. His idea was that if we live together and he meets someone he should be able to do whatever he likes without having to compromise (e.g. go off and spend as many nights he feels he needs with her when I'm home alone). I know already I can't deal with it so I cut him loose. It's sad but best to admit it now so I don't end up waiting for something that will never happen. I can work on my ego and jealousy and control and compromise, but there also has to be a point where I'm true to myself and honest about my needs and limitations.

He didn't know he was poly when we met, the whole process of getting to know who he was and what he needed was with me, with my support and through many mistakes and small betrayals from his side and my mistakes and all the stuff that comes with it. But it's been a journey and we've both grown and supported each other through it. It saddens me that this journey now seems to have reached its end. It saddens me that I was willing to compromise and go poly but that he wasn't able to give the reassurances or make the compromises about having some stability in our future. Many couples here were married and mono before opening up, so there's the knowledge that your partner was and would be willing/able to be around you every day at points, be your companion and partner in life, maybe even go mono at points when you need them to. He can't do this, even though apparently I'm the only person he's ever felt so comfortable spending a lot of time with. I won't argue with him; I can't change him. But I'm not some super controlling person, I'm pretty low maintenance, and I do want him to be happy. Still I think I'm right in not making a journey that would be painful and difficult without him considering meeting me half way. I think it's hard to describe how close we've been - talking and texting multiple times per day, about everything, best friends and always sleeping cuddled up. Anyway, he's pretty broken and I've had better days, too. I'm worried about his secondary and asked him to reassure her it really wasn't her fault; she was very supportive of our relationship.

And BirthofVenus, you're right - he does constantly have the need to be desired and depended on, probably related to his low self esteem. I just hope he continues to meet good people who treat him with respect.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-13-2013, 05:23 PM
Vinccenzo Vinccenzo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BirthofVenus View Post
I'm in the same situation as your partner's extra curricular relationship. In my opinion it seems very controlling and almost abusive of you to be someone who puts a limit on how frequent your partner is able to be with someone else. It's actually unreasonable. Setting boundaries on how, when, etc... two people want to interact is unfair. Especially if she's getting so little and she probably needs more. Infact I know she needs more. If she's not a real threat, relax, and let them spend however many days together as long as it doesn't dominate your time.

Like she's made the choice of going into this arrangement, you're making a choice by only giving a few days/nights of your time to your partner, and being with your partner in general knowing their Poly needs. Even if you didn't know this until some time into the relationship, you were still made aware of it, and have a choice to stay, or continue fishing. You're not living together, married, or with children together. So, it's a less risk prone situation for you to walk away should this not have been to your liking. If he needs to be more engaged with female company, maybe you should give him more of your time. Perhaps this will shake the Poly webs off of him and give you the Mono attention you require.

In my experience with the man I am with who is Poly... these men generally need to be constantly engaged with a female relationship, whether it be sexual, romantic, platonic, etc... They require that connection to feel good. More often than not the attention they require isn't enough for them and they find other partners to sustain themselves. They also have an ego where they enjoy feeling wanted in every which way. The more dependencies, the more important they feel. Most Poly men are more successful in their careers, they like to dominate, and they like being able to get what they want at a drop of a hat. Most on a MFF level are Alpha Males who instinctively enjoy providing and supporting their partners. Sometimes a quality is lacking in their primary, that quality is something they need, they look for extra curricular activities to find it, but still want to maintain their primaries because they enjoy the qualities that they do have. Some Poly relationships surface because of ones ability and need to share love alone with multiple partners. Not because one partner personally isn't enough, but because they enjoy loving many in an isolated sense. There are also those Poly relationships that exist because someone is obligated and can't bring themselves to fully leave. So, they just add to what they have to get through their days. There are so many motives for these relationships existing.

I find it's due to women being more unavailable because of modern society that these relationships are happening more. Most women won't stop working to stay at home (whether it be their parents house or their house with their husbands - only in the last century has it been acceptable for a single woman to be on her own), even if their partner is well off enough to support both. Polygamy is more dominated by the male. There are more men looking for multiple partners and most of the partners they chose are Mono to them. This I feel is because men are more territorial. I also feel it's safer for paternity should a partner become pregnant. A society that Polygamy is more accepting of is Islam. It goes long before the Mormons. In Islam a man is allowed four wives as long as he is able to support each wife 100% and equally.

I also blame the media for "Sister Wives" and "Big Love" in the increase of these relationships. It looks trendy, cool, and gives everyone a reason to 'cheat' with dignity. I'm not saying I'm anti-Poly with that remark. It's just amusing to see people who've been notorious cheaters transition to being Poly still engaged in cheating ways. Being Poly is about being open and honest with your partners. Screwing around with a few partners and having not one of them know about each other is cheating, not Poly.

I don't know how new you are to this whole world of Poly, but the reason for my banter is to educate you on the motives.

It's largely your subconscious telling you that you're insecure with what you have by being so hesitant. I think it's selfish if you already know your partners tenancies. Limiting his time to feel even better about himself and giving her little of his time to feel good about herself/connected in general will do more damage. If you keep firm with your original wants/needs and they're that crazy about each other... they will rebel, all will be hurt.

You need to allow a balance where not just your needs are met. If this becomes all about you it's not a healthy two way (in this case three way) street of a relationship. Trying to change a person because they're Poly to suit your Mono ways will also never work. These behaviours don't change. You just need to accept it. A Poly person is just as valid as a Homosexual person. It's their human nature. Taking that away from them will be a very uncomfortable transition. Us women have issues with relationships we enter inevitably becoming all about us.

These relationships are so multi layered and resemble an onion in my opinion. They're so complex but at the end of the day you need to give a little bit more to get a lot more. You'll earn more respect by him and especially her. Like in business, in order to make money, you need to spend money.

I wish you the best and please accept my apologies if I have offended you in any which way!
Hmmm dunno. The person you are describing here sounds very much like this rather than just a guy practicing polyamory:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

The reason why I've never agreed with poly being on par with sexual orientation is that no one is guaranteed to even find one intimate partner let alone many. Having an intimate partner isn't something each person is owed in life otherwise we'd start legislating in favor of sexual slavery.
As well if it were not more of a personality disorder than an orientation, fellas like you've described wouldn't require their partners be monogamous to them. For a person to feel having many partners is a need they'd have to also believe it a need others have as well.
Paternity concerns are the creation of property laws rather than natural law. A child is never really illegitimate in any other way than with concern for property law. Since one can leave their property to anyone rather than having to leave it to biological ties, the concern for paternity has no rational worth; it won't benefit a biological tie more than it will anyone else who receives it. A child is always a child and each child has the same basic needs before any special needs specific to itself. Parenting isn't easier if the child is biological to the parent and biological parents are not always capable of fulfilling the role of parent even to a biological child. Setting a standard based on gender as a nod to paternity is sexist. Its a prejudice.

IMO, if you were to swallow the reasoning above as just how poly men are and part of some natural law you should conform to despite your preferences, you're likely to find yourself in an unhealthy relationship. I hope that's not the case for you BirthOfVenus.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-13-2013, 06:19 PM
NovemberRain's Avatar
NovemberRain NovemberRain is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalondon View Post
This came at a sad time for me because I've told him I can't be in a long-term relationship with him any more this afternoon...
Oh lolalondon, I'm so sorry you had to come to this painful conclusion. I'm glad you have been able to understand your needs and boundaries, and I'm glad you were able to communicate them to him.

You have absolutely not been abusive. You are a better woman than I, to not be offended by that post. I like what vinccenzo said very much. My men were so very not like the ones described. There are vast numbers of individual poly men out there, and I highly doubt there's accurate descriptions possible of 'most poly men.'

And it was entirely thoughtful and loving of you to let his secondary know. I hope you're doing all you can to take the best care of yourself.

NR
__________________
Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own...
Robert A. Heinlein

Me: female, bi, (formerly hinge of a vee)
with FirstBoyFriend (FBF)(moderately long-distance)
and no longer with CurrentBoyFriend (CBF)(who lives in the apartment building next door)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-13-2013, 08:52 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
The reason why I've never agreed with poly being on par with sexual orientation is that no one is guaranteed to even find one intimate partner let alone many. Having an intimate partner isn't something each person is owed in life otherwise we'd start legislating in favor of sexual slavery.
I don't understand what you mean by "on par" with sexual orientation. Can you explain?

I am poly, but that doesn't mean I "need" multiple partners, any more than a mono person "needs" any partner at all. It simply means I have the capacity to maintain multiple romantic relationships and that I need to be allowed to pursue that. Mono means not having that capacity.

The Declaration of Independence doesn't guarantee happiness, it only guarantee the right to pursue happiness. That doesn't mean you'll catch it.

Quote:
Paternity concerns are the creation of property laws rather than natural law. A child is never really illegitimate in any other way than with concern for property law. Since one can leave their property to anyone rather than having to leave it to biological ties, the concern for paternity has no rational worth; it won't benefit a biological tie more than it will anyone else who receives it. A child is always a child and each child has the same basic needs before any special needs specific to itself. Parenting isn't easier if the child is biological to the parent and biological parents are not always capable of fulfilling the role of parent even to a biological child.
I'm assuming you were not adopted. I've yet to meet an adopted person who does not feel some kind of abandonment issues. It doesn't seem to matter if the adoptive family is wonderful, loving, caring, and compassionate. There's always that feeling of "what would my life be like if I wasn't adopted?"

My husband was adopted. His adoptive sister never forgave him for it. She was not adequately prepared by the adoptive parents; suddenly, there was just this new baby in the house. She never considered him part of the family.

I would argue that paternity is also medically relevant. The complications of many inheritable diseases can be prevented with early detection through tests triggered by a family history. If your Dad isn't your biological dad, and you don't know it, you might not think to check.

But I agree that no child is illegitimate and that it's wrong for any parent to treat them as such.

My mom was an "accident." They already had 6 kids and they didn't want 7. My grandma never let her forget it. Her oldest sister was conceived out of wedlock, and likewise was seen as the reason that my grandma was alienated from her own family. But the two boys born 2nd and 3rd could do no wrong. Not cool, Grandma. Not cool.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-13-2013, 10:04 PM
Vinccenzo Vinccenzo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
I don't understand what you mean by "on par" with sexual orientation. Can you explain?

I am poly, but that doesn't mean I "need" multiple partners, any more than a mono person "needs" any partner at all. It simply means I have the capacity to maintain multiple romantic relationships and that I need to be allowed to pursue that. Mono means not having that capacity.

The Declaration of Independence doesn't guarantee happiness, it only guarantee the right to pursue happiness. That doesn't mean you'll catch it.
Sure, I'll try.
We are speaking of someone who is entirely homosexual rather than somewhere in between on the Kinsey Scale. While a homosexual person is a homosexual person whether they are having sex or not, they do need their sexual partner to be of their own gender to be fulfilled in having that sex. If you stick to strictly love of the romantic variety they will have romantic love for someone of their own gender. Trying to do otherwise is unsavory to them and can even scar them emotionally.

Same set up for a heterosexual only with the opposite gender.

Someone who feels compelled to have many sexual partners doesn't need to have sex only in a group sex situation. Having sex with only one person at a time will not be emotionally scarring for them. Someone who is capable of having many romantic loves doesn't need every romantic relationship to consist of them and another twosome, threesome etc for them to feel love at all. They may want another person to love also but it won't scar them emotionally to have a romantic love with only one person. It just means if they love ONE person and another person they are compatible with comes along wanting the same, they can do so without a loss of love for the first person.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
I'm assuming you were not adopted. I've yet to meet an adopted person who does not feel some kind of abandonment issues. It doesn't seem to matter if the adoptive family is wonderful, loving, caring, and compassionate. There's always that feeling of "what would my life be like if I wasn't adopted?"

My husband was adopted. His adoptive sister never forgave him for it. She was not adequately prepared by the adoptive parents; suddenly, there was just this new baby in the house. She never considered him part of the family.
I was not adopted or raised in an institution for orphans yet have abandonment issues anyway. Go figure. I guess that means people can wistfully wonder about how their life would be about anything they don't have that someone else did have? Rejection is something we will all face at some point and it can wound us without having anything to do with biological ties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
I would argue that paternity is also medically relevant. The complications of many inheritable diseases can be prevented with early detection through tests triggered by a family history. If your Dad isn't your biological dad, and you don't know it, you might not think to check.
If this were an always situation rather than a case specific situation adoption would not be possible. When it comes to medical issues it surely can help to know your genetic background and how it contributes but unless a disease presents, not being raised by your bio ties will not complicate their ability to do the job.
And we're not talking about the deceit of making a man and a child believe they are biologically tied when they are not. That is a whole different screwed up scenario. The mother will know her family medical history and she may know that of the real father to have the forethought to have certain conditions tested. A father in the dark about paternity could do the same and at least discover he isn't the father. But if he does discover the kid isn't biologically his, it would be his priorities and attitude that would make him unable to continue to be that kids father, not the lack of genetic material shared between them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
But I agree that no child is illegitimate and that it's wrong for any parent to treat them as such.

My mom was an "accident." They already had 6 kids and they didn't want 7. My grandma never let her forget it. Her oldest sister was conceived out of wedlock, and likewise was seen as the reason that my grandma was alienated from her own family. But the two boys born 2nd and 3rd could do no wrong. Not cool, Grandma. Not cool.
And she was probably genetically tied to your mom yet failed spectacularly at the job of being a grandmother. Capability is not reserved to the genetic realm the way orientation is.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-13-2013, 10:57 PM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
Sure, I'll try.
We are speaking of someone who is entirely homosexual rather than somewhere in between on the Kinsey Scale. While a homosexual person is a homosexual person whether they are having sex or not, they do need their sexual partner to be of their own gender to be fulfilled in having that sex. If you stick to strictly love of the romantic variety they will have romantic love for someone of their own gender. Trying to do otherwise is unsavory to them and can even scar them emotionally.

Same set up for a heterosexual only with the opposite gender.

Someone who feels compelled to have many sexual partners doesn't need to have sex only in a group sex situation. Having sex with only one person at a time will not be emotionally scarring for them. Someone who is capable of having many romantic loves doesn't need every romantic relationship to consist of them and another twosome, threesome etc for them to feel love at all. They may want another person to love also but it won't scar them emotionally to have a romantic love with only one person. It just means if they love ONE person and another person they are compatible with comes along wanting the same, they can do so without a loss of love for the first person.
There are polys who cannot be in mono relationships. To be in a relationship where they are not allowed to pursue other relationships can leave them feeling trapped, stifled, and like they're sacrificing their own needs for those of their partner. It "is unsavoury to them and can even scar them emotionally."

A homosexual can be without a relationship, but if s/he is in one, it must be homosexual. The poly described above can be without multiple relationships, but if s/he is in one, it must be nonmonogamous.

Similarly, some monos cannot be in a poly relationship. They need to know that they are the only person their partner loves.

And then you have the "bisexuals of poly" who can be in either a mono relationship or a poly relationship depending on the polyness of their partner.

So whether you're talking about the extremes of the Kinsey scale or including the orientations in the middle, there are equivalences with the poly case. I see them as completely "on par."
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-14-2013, 12:51 AM
lolalondon lolalondon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NovemberRain View Post
Oh lolalondon, I'm so sorry you had to come to this painful conclusion. I'm glad you have been able to understand your needs and boundaries, and I'm glad you were able to communicate them to him.

You have absolutely not been abusive. You are a better woman than I, to not be offended by that post. I like what vinccenzo said very much. My men were so very not like the ones described. There are vast numbers of individual poly men out there, and I highly doubt there's accurate descriptions possible of 'most poly men.'

And it was entirely thoughtful and loving of you to let his secondary know. I hope you're doing all you can to take the best care of yourself.

NR
Thanks you NR, I appreciate it. Yes it's painful but already I know it was the right thing to do. I try to operate a no regrets policy in my life, I guess...

Re poly as an orientation - I tend to agree with SchrodingersCat in the sense that my (ex) bf did "trapped, stifled, and like they're sacrificing their own needs for those of their partner" in past monogamous relationships. But he had the option to be nonmonogamous, and then poly, with me. All I asked was for some reassurance about the future and that we can make a life together - and for the record, I'm not mono. But I'm not poly, either. I think I could be in a poly relationship with the right person, but that wasn't him.

I realised that in many ways this isn't about him being poly but more likely something he has now found a way to deal with by being poly... he has many OCD behaviours and difficulties with social and group situations and I think he likes to distract himself, and connect through the world, by having the constant rush of falling in love. But it occurred to me that most poly couples on this forums have been together, often mono, for years before opening up, living and spending every night together for years... It's perfectly acceptable in the community to ask your partner to go mono for a while during times of stress, when a partner is ill, or when the relationship needs strengthening... whenever. I don't feel he would ever be able to do that for me. The poly label should not be a cover for people's inability to be fully committed or spend time around their partner. I will always feel alone with him, and I think it's regardless of him being poly. In so many ways he needed me to be self-sufficient, both of us standing alone and connecting at points when it's convenient for him and when it could work around his other preoccupations.

I wanted to know that we could live together, and the only way he was willing to consider this is if he could be away from the house 3 nights a week - regardless of which other relationship he was in at the time. He then admitted it's simply that even though we don't really spend much time together, he can't imagine wanting or being able to spend more, and it's better with me than with anyone else. He simply can't deal with being around someone every night, full stop. No willingness to compromise, which I respect if it's genuinely something he's unwilling/unable to work on. All our friends think he's going to regret it because ultimately we've been so good for each other, but I'm now just relieved to be out and no longer have to work around his hangups. Will miss him so much though
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-14-2013, 01:34 AM
Vinccenzo Vinccenzo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
There are polys who cannot be in mono relationships. To be in a relationship where they are not allowed to pursue other relationships can leave them feeling trapped, stifled, and like they're sacrificing their own needs for those of their partner. It "is unsavoury to them and can even scar them emotionally."

A homosexual can be without a relationship, but if s/he is in one, it must be homosexual. The poly described above can be without multiple relationships, but if s/he is in one, it must be nonmonogamous.

Similarly, some monos cannot be in a poly relationship. They need to know that they are the only person their partner loves.

And then you have the "bisexuals of poly" who can be in either a mono relationship or a poly relationship depending on the polyness of their partner.

So whether you're talking about the extremes of the Kinsey scale or including the orientations in the middle, there are equivalences with the poly case. I see them as completely "on par."
I'm not talking about lack of compatibility - one wants poly but their current partner wants mono. I'm talking about someone wanting and having the option to be with many partners but presently has only one. It isn't as if they cannot be in that kind of relationship because it is only one person. They are not oriented to be unable to such as saying "well you are but one person and that makes being sexual with you icky to me. Come back with some more people in tow and we'll talk." That is how being poly is different from sexual orientation.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-14-2013, 03:14 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
I wanted to know that we could live together, and the only way he was willing to consider this is if he could be away from the house 3 nights a week - regardless of which other relationship he was in at the time. He then admitted it's simply that even though we don't really spend much time together, he can't imagine wanting or being able to spend more, and it's better with me than with anyone else. He simply can't deal with being around someone every night, full stop. No willingness to compromise, which I respect if it's genuinely something he's unwilling/unable to work on. All our friends think he's going to regret it because ultimately we've been so good for each other, but I'm now just relieved to be out and no longer have to work around his hangups. Will miss him so much though
I can relate to him in this sense, and I don't think it's something that needs working on from his perspective. I don't see it as a dysfunction (you didn't use that word, but "something to work on" implies that you might see it that way... just my interpretation). That could be because my husband is the only person I can stand spending more than 3 days consecutively with. And at the end of his 3.5 weeks vacation at Christmas, I was sooo ready for him to go back to work out of town. I love him fully, I love having him around, but I need my own time and space. I think it's one of the reasons I never wanted kids.

I don't have OCD and I'm a psychologically healthy person, so I don't see that as a shortcoming in myself. I'm not sure this is a symptom of his OCD either, it could just be who he is. Someone having one disorder does not mean everything that's "different" about them is part of that disorder. Not every difference is a problem, unless the person with the difference sees it as a problem themselves.

What it does mean is that it creates a source of incompatibility with someone who wants / needs a relationship to be an "every day" kind of thing. So while it's not a problem for him in and of itself, it clearly is a problem for your relationship, and that sucks.

Now that you know this about yourself, it would be a good thing to put on the table at the beginning of any future relationships. Not like "Hi, thanks for asking me on this first date. So when do you want to move in?" but just mentioning that you're not interested in any relationships that don't have moving in as an eventual possibility.

I got dumped once because I told the guy we would never get married. I can't remember if that was when I still thought I would never get married to anyone because that meant being trapped in monogamy; but I definitely knew he was not husband material for me regardless. He was fun to date, but I knew it wasn't going there. For his part, he couldn't be in a relationship where marriage was never going to be an option. It had to be something that was at least theoretically possible. So we parted ways with no hard feelings, having learned something valuable about ourselves.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-14-2013, 03:44 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinccenzo View Post
I'm not talking about lack of compatibility - one wants poly but their current partner wants mono. I'm talking about someone wanting and having the option to be with many partners but presently has only one. It isn't as if they cannot be in that kind of relationship because it is only one person. They are not oriented to be unable to such as saying "well you are but one person and that makes being sexual with you icky to me. Come back with some more people in tow and we'll talk." That is how being poly is different from sexual orientation.
*sigh* I can't tell if you're not listening to me, or if I'm being unclear. I'll assume the latter and elaborate.

Poly relationships are not like homosexual relationships in that sense, I'll grant you that. But that is a characteristic of the relationship, not the strictly-poly person in it. The strictly-poly person is oriented to only be in nonmonogamous relationships. The poly-orientation of that person is as much a part of them as the sexual-orientation is of a homosexual. It affects their ability to form certain kinds of relationships to an equal extent.

I'm talking about the kind of person who says "You want to be in a monogamous relationship? That makes being in a relationship with you icky to me. I'd rather stay single." To me, that's exactly the same as a homosexual saying "You're the opposite sex as me? That makes being in a relationship with you icky to me. I'd rather stay single."

A homosexual person can only be in certain types of relationship: those with members of the same sex. A strictly-poly person can only be in certain types of relationship: nonmonogamous relationships.

I'm not talking about being in a relationship and finding it icky because there is presently only one person. That would be more like a single person finding it icky that they're single. I have other opinions on that, but they're not relevant to this discussion. I'm talking about contemplating a relationship with a certain person and finding it icky because they would only allowed to be with that one person.

Whether or not you're talking about compatibility, it comes into play: Gay men are incompatible with women. Lesbians are incompatible with men. Strict-polys are incompatible with monos.

Yes, there are polys who won't date monos, even when the mono consents to the relationship being nonmonogamous. They don't want to be with someone who doesn't understand them, doesn't want the same things from life, and requires them to meet all their romantic and sexual needs.

There are certain types of relationships that homosexuals will not enter: heterosexual relationships. If a they cannot find a homosexual relationship, they will stay single.

There are certain types of relationships that strict-polys will not enter: monogamous relationships. If they cannot find a nonmonogamous relationship, they will stay single.

Incidentally, the 3rd wife on Sister Wives always knew that she wanted to be a 3rd wife. 1st was too much like mono; 2nd was too much like splitting a mono relationship. By 3rd, they were established as polygamous, had worked out jealousy issues in general, and knew how they wanted their family to be. She would have found it icky to be in the marriage without the other two wives in tow... There are also people on this very forum who prefer to date couples as a unit rather than form multiple separate relationships. So even that objection is not without its counter-examples.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."

Last edited by SchrodingersCat; 01-14-2013 at 03:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:46 AM.