Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-10-2013, 03:24 AM
LovelyFuture LovelyFuture is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
So if you saw them less but still felt as intensely about them, then what? Say you saw a guy three times a week for NSA sex, and another guy who you didnt have sex with, saw once month, but was head over heels in love with, who would bother him more?
Ha, it almost sounds like a brain teaser...if two trains leave their stations...
You know, I will try and ask him this question.

----------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emm View Post
It appears that it's your BF who's the one going away, so I don't buy the "it's mainly the time I spend away" argument. If BF isn't in town when you're out on a date then it's not as if your dating is taking away from time you could be spending with him. It sounds more like a control or ownership issue.
It does sound like ownership. He wants to know that I am his and he is mine, & he wants all outside parties to know this, that he is the #1.

I think the fact that I happened to pursue these 2 outside relationships on the rare 2 occasions that he left town...makes him feel out of control. He wants to meet the person that I'm seeing, so as to establish himself in their minds, so he's not a figment to them, he's a real person. As for the fact that both relationships were furthered while he was away, it could be a coincidence, but perhaps it's more likely that I subconsciously feel more "free" when he's away.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-10-2013, 03:25 AM
LovelyFuture LovelyFuture is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
I resent the reframing of a need for something closer to monogamy as a control or ownership issue. The only thing it definitely is in this case is an incompatibility. Poly people can be too quick too negatively label the symptoms of one being monogamous and turn them into character flaws.
This sounds reasonable as well.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-10-2013, 03:32 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

He has to understand that meeting your others is his need. Their need might be in opposition. Do you need your partners to meet?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-10-2013, 03:32 AM
Emm's Avatar
Emm Emm is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
I resent the reframing of a need for something closer to monogamy as a control or ownership issue. The only thing it definitely is in this case is an incompatibility. Poly people can be too quick too negatively label the symptoms of one being monogamous and turn them into character flaws.
When it happens in the context of a monogamous relationship it may be quite normal. When it comes up and is dealt with in an open relationship then it may be a quirk and/or an incompatibility. When it's used to guilt-trip a partner in what has been established as an open relationship for years it becomes a character flaw.

You, of course, are entitled to resent that or not as you wish.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-10-2013, 03:41 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

An open relationship does not automatically mean a fully polyamorous relationship. The OP has said more than once that polyamory wasn't their agreement, an open relationship with no specifics was what they agreed. Now they've basically found that she wants polyamory and he wants something more like monogamy if not monogamy itself. Neither party has lied or mislead the other here. He hasn't backtracked. They just obviously thought they were on the same page about what the rules and boundaries were. I'm not of the opinion that any relationship that restricts outside emotional availability has control and ownership issues.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-10-2013, 03:44 AM
LovelyFuture LovelyFuture is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
He has to understand that meeting your others is his need. Their need might be in opposition. Do you need your partners to meet?
No, I don't need my partners to meet, it's not a necessity for me. It makes Boyfriend feel better to meet them, so I do it because I want him to feel comfortable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emm View Post
When it happens in the context of a monogamous relationship it may be quite normal. When it comes up and is dealt with in an open relationship then it may be a quirk and/or an incompatibility. When it's used to guilt-trip a partner in what has been established as an open relationship for years it becomes a character flaw.
That sounds correct - to the credit, though, of Boyfriend, we've only had very short flings, mostly with out-of-towners, and this year is the first time that one of us has tried to pursue something serious with someone in town, so it's the first time we're navigating this "portion" of what an open relationship means...when you have a longer-term outside partner in mind...

Pretty wild that it took so long for one of us to pursue something like this, & bring this conversation to the forefront...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-10-2013, 03:48 AM
LovelyFuture LovelyFuture is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
An open relationship does not automatically mean a fully polyamorous relationship. The OP has said more than once that polyamory wasn't their agreement, an open relationship with no specifics was what they agreed. Now they've basically found that she wants polyamory and he wants something more like monogamy if not monogamy itself. Neither party has lied or mislead the other here. He hasn't backtracked. They just obviously thought they were on the same page about what the rules and boundaries were. I'm not of the opinion that any relationship that restricts outside emotional availability has control and ownership issues.
Yes, all true. We started a general open relationship, thought we were on the same page, & realized we're obviously not on the same page...now we are trying to figure out the specifics.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-2013, 05:29 AM
aLABiMCpl's Avatar
aLABiMCpl aLABiMCpl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 90
Exclamation Huh?

`

Respect the Boundaries and Abide by them.
This all really should have been agreed upon before he left, but things come up and both must adapt.
Frankly though, this seems like common sense, in any relationship.


`
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-10-2013, 05:40 AM
Emm's Avatar
Emm Emm is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
An open relationship does not automatically mean a fully polyamorous relationship.
Indeed. To me "open" implies even fewer rules than would be found in a specifically poly or swinging relationship. That makes the sudden imposition of rules several years in appear to be more of an attempt to display ownership than in either of the other cases.

In this case, it seems that not checking that everyone is using the same definition of "open" has led to the quirk and/or incompatibility phase being delayed by several years.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-10-2013, 06:25 AM
Eponine Eponine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovelyFuture View Post
Honestly, sometimes I think I would do better being a single poly person. It's just hard to even think about that when my SO says he will never speak to me again if I move out of the house we share. He's not willing to see me if I become a single poly. Sigh.
Or you can have non-hierarchical poly relationships, which means, even if you live with one of your SOs, it doesn't give him the privilege to restrict your other relationships; all your SOs are on a level playing field without an arbitrary rule saying any one of them is above all others. It seems that you're more suited for solo poly or non-hierarchical poly, but your SO prefers swinging or hierarchical poly with a strict primary vs. secondary division. You need to talk about exactly what kind of relationship configuration each of you want, and see if it's possible to find a middle ground.
__________________
Heteroromantic asexual female, sex-positive, childfree, relationship anarchist.
Married to G, and in a partially non-romantic, completely non-sexual and long-distance triad with A and L.
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 07:13 PM.