Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-20-2010, 07:52 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
It will take years, speaking from experience, or a life time even. Unless you are good at coming back from something like that. As others have said, it either works or it doesn't. I'm sorry to have to say, but I have only seen that it doesn't work. Apparently others make it work or have seen others make it work for them in terms of arrangements after an affair.
Chalk me up as as example of this working out. A long story as to the "why" but bottom line is I cheated on my partner. Years and years of work and we regained a level of trust, but it takes a huge amount of commitment on both sides to make it work.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-20-2010, 09:28 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
Chalk me up as as example of this working out. A long story as to the "why" but bottom line is I cheated on my partner. Years and years of work and we regained a level of trust, but it takes a huge amount of commitment on both sides to make it work.
My role model for it "working out" is my parents. They choice to stay together because of us kids. They hated each other our whole youth and teen years and now just tolerate each other. They have moments of love now that they are in their 70s but they are a crap example of a successful relationship. I have good reason to believe that it more often doesn't work or is not worth staying miserable for. Of course this is not very positive and I'm sorry for that, with a couple of perspectives maybe it will help.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-20-2010, 11:02 PM
StitchwitchD StitchwitchD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMom View Post
Is she just using polyamory and the concept of an open marriage as a tool to enable her to stay with this person and not destroy our family? I feel as if she's not really interested in polyamory if she can't have this one particular individual.
.
Polyamory, like monogamy, is about relationships with particular individuals. So, her wanting to have a poly relationship with the 2 particular men who she loves, but lacking interest in just going out and finding random strangers to have poly relationships with is equivalent to you wanting to have a monogamous relationship with her, but not being interested in just going out and finding some random stranger to have a monogamous relationship with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMom View Post
I might be ok with us involving others in our sex life, but I don't think I'm OK with her having a separate life-partner where if I was out of the picture they'd probably end up getting married and having a monogamous life.
So, you'd be okay with swinging, but not poly to the degree of having a co-primary---but she has no interest in swinging and really wants poly...and offering her swinging when she wants poly is like offering her sushi when she wants chocolate cake.

You need to sit down and really talk about your wants, her wants, your fears, her fears, get everything out on the table--- I'm suspecting that there was already a breakdown in communication before the affair started, or she would have told you when she first got in touch with him, or at least when things started going past your boundaries. So, you need to get communication back on track, and set some boundaries at least while trust is being rebuilt.

(And maybe get to know this guy, if you can actually give him a fair shot after what happened. At least give him a chance to explain things to you from his point of view, find out his intentions, etc. )
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-21-2010, 12:25 AM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

I'm in agreement with those who say the wife should be willing to put this other relationship on hold (at least) until the trust and cheating stuff has been worked with and through.

On another point very different...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
For what it's worth, I don't choose additional relationships because of things that might be "missing" or "lacking" in one relationship. Every relationship is whole for me and I wouldn't be getting into any relationship that was great in some ways but lacking in others. I find most poly relationships thrive if each relationship is whole and healthy. It would probably be a good idea to address that first.
What Ceoli says here is a nice ideal to shoot for, and it's worthy of much respect, but I would add that I think (my opinion) that very few people compliment one another in a totally complete sort of way. Most very good relationships, good and healthy relationships, involve and include both (or all three or four...) feeling as if there is some less than perfect connection or complementarity. As a good friend put it to me, we all have to do some "putting up with" in our relationships. Ideals make good targets, but are seldom realized in space and time (a.k.a., "the real world").

I love my partner tremendously, but there are ways we don't connect perfectly; we have our issues and troubles; but we love one another and -- yes our relationship is whole. But maybe he or I could meet some of our needs for intimacy, in part, by allowing others into the picture? I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't think it makes our love for one another less whole if we recognize that we're not a "perfect fit/match", that we're different, that our needs are slightly off-kilter because of our differences....

Last edited by River; 01-21-2010 at 12:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-21-2010, 12:32 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
What Ceoli says here is a nice ideal to shoot for, and it's worthy of much respect, but I would add that I think (my opinion) that very few people compliment one another in a totally complete sort of way. Most very good relationships, good and healthy relationships, involve and include both (or all three or four...) feeling as if there is some less than perfect connection or complementarity. As a good friend put it to me, we all have to do some "putting up with" in our relationships. Ideals make good targets, but are seldom realized in space and time (a.k.a., "the real world").
I'm not saying that things that people "put up with" don't exist in ideal relationships, but those things are not what make or break a relationship. However, I don't go seeking relationships based upon what is lacking in what relationships I might already have. I seek relationships with people, not with qualities that might be missing in one partner but evident in another so that when you combine them, I get to have all the qualities I want.

I choose to have relationships based upon the person and that's it. And if they as a person don't contain the qualities I need for a thriving and healthy relationship in and of itself and regardless of what other relationships I have, I don't have a relationship with them. I don't take part of one and part of another. So far, having experienced this in real time and "the real world", it seems an entirely reasonable and not idealistic thing at all.

Last edited by Ceoli; 01-21-2010 at 12:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-21-2010, 12:43 AM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I choose to have relationships based upon the person and that's it. And if they as a person don't contain the qualities I need for a thriving and healthy relationship in and of itself and regardless of what other relationships I have, I don't have a relationship with them. I don't take part of one and part of another. So far, having experienced this in real time and "the real world", it seems an entirely reasonable and not idealistic thing at all.
Thanks for helping me to get yet more clear in my own understanding on this, Ceoli. I also don't seek further relationships because of something lacking, some quality I imagine I need to collect like stamps or butterflies.... And I do see my relationship with my partner (of 14 yrs) as "thriving and healthy". And he and I connect real nicely in numerous ways -- but I know there are ways we cannot connect because of our temperamental (?etc.) differences. For example, I'm quite a verbal person. He's not. That doesn't make either of us bad people, or incompatible. It does make our relationship more challenging than it might otherwise be. I love him no less because of our difference in this dept. He loves me no less because of it. We love one another very much. And our differences challenge each of us to grow, develop, expand.... So there's nothing wrong, per se. And I am not actively looking to complete my stamp collection or anything. But, yes, it could/would be real nice to have another partner who can meet me in some of the ways my sweet K cannot.

Last edited by River; 01-21-2010 at 01:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-21-2010, 12:50 AM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post


that very few people compliment one another in a totally complete sort of way.
This sounds like "reverse monogamism" to me. Monogamism holds the tenet that there is "the one" right person for everyone out there, and that if things aren't "totally complete", then those two people are "wrong" for each other. This statement suggests that polyamorous people still need to be "completed" but they just need more people in order to do so. That's kind of pathetic and co-dependent. Not only do I not need someone to "complete" ME, but I do not want to be thought of as the "missing pieces" of someone ELSE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I'm not saying that things that people "put up with" don't exist in ideal relationships, but those things are not what make or break a relationship. However, I don't go seeking relationships based upon what is lacking in what relationships I might already have. I seek relationships with people, not with qualities that might be missing in one partner but evident in another so that when you combine them, I get to have all the qualities I want.

I choose to have relationships based upon the person and that's it. And if they as a person don't contain the qualities I need for a thriving and healthy relationship in and of itself and regardless of what other relationships I have, I don't have a relationship with them. I don't take part of one and part of another. So far, having experienced this in real time and "the real world", it seems an entirely reasonable and not idealistic thing at all.

I quoted this just because it is an excellent answer and i would have said the same kind of thing if i'd thought of it first.

Last edited by NeonKaos; 01-21-2010 at 12:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:13 AM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGirl View Post
This sounds like "reverse monogamism" to me. Monogamism holds the tenet that there is "the one" right person for everyone out there, and that if things aren't "totally complete", then those two people are "wrong" for each other. This statement suggests that polyamorous people still need to be "completed" but they just need more people in order to do so. That's kind of pathetic and co-dependent. Not only do I not need someone to "complete" ME, but I do not want to be thought of as the "missing pieces" of someone ELSE.
All I know is that I reject both the notion that some one person can or should "complete" me and the notion that some several people would be required to "complete" me. I'm not leaping out of the monogamism frying pan only to land in some other sort of incompleteness fire. Loving relationships do not "complete" people..., cannot.... That's not the point or purpose of loving relationship. Loving is.

"This statement suggests that polyamorous people still need to be "completed" but they just need more people in order to do so."

Nah! I can reject what you've called "monogamism," YGirl, without falling into what you're calling "reverse monogamism" -- or the incompleteness theorem.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:22 AM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,221
Default

I forgot to add "this is the general-you not you-as-in-a-particular-individual-on-this-forum" to my last post.

My bad!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:30 AM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post
... but I would add that I think (my opinion) that very few people compliment one another in a totally complete sort of way.
Looking at the words I actually uttered, I think it is clear that I never said anything about anyone "completing" anyone at all.

What I said was that few people compliment one another in a complete way. But I see that there are two spellings, with somewhat divergent usages.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/complement.html

And now I see from looking at various online dictionaries that I perhaps didn't choose precisely the most apt term for what I meant to convey. What I did NOT mean to convey is the idea of one or more persons completing one another. That would require that each person was not already whole in him-/herself. That, I did not mean.

So..., what did i mean by "compliment" (which I clearly misused)?

I simply meant that it is unrealistic (as I see it) to presume that it may often occur that any two people will likely "meet" (encounter and understand one another) in every area of life, on all things and matters. This does perhaps happen every once in a while, but it is a severe disservice to many good relationships to presume that they are failed, broken, insufficient, wrong... because both (or more) parties aren't "meeting" on all levels, in every area of their existence.

Wanting to have a diversity of intimate relationships, it seems to me, is a natural way of acknowledging that no one can be all things for anyone. Acknowledging that this is so does not amount to just another version of a game of seeking "completeness".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cheating, control, open marriage, open relationship, trust

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 05:40 PM.