Polyamory.com Forum  

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


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-10-2014, 01:20 AM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 838

I don't think wind up threads are very mature either 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.....
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 01:57 AM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 1,343

Originally Posted by CuriouslyPoly View Post
I wonder...what's the point of being in poly relationships if I don't desire or rather not be be involved in 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.

Originally Posted by CuriouslyPoly View Post
So there has to be line drawn for polyamorous relationships to work
For you.
For others, there does not.
Both are polyamory.
Dramatis personae:
Me: 47/F, Divorced with 2 kids, 2 cats, fish, a tarantula, and a 1930s house with many projects.
Chops: 48/M, Partner of 6 years.
Spinner: 52/M, Friend I went on a couple dates with. Divorced, Mono, "just friends".
Xena: 47/F, Chops' partner of 6 years
Curls: 50/F, Chops' partner of 1 year

Supporting Characters:
Choplet: Chops' son
DanceGirl: My oldest daughter
Pokégirl: My youngest daughter
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 02:20 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 10,083

Originally Posted by CuriouslyPoly View Post
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.

Originally Posted by CuriouslyPoly View Post
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 beleived them. Sexual orientation has no automatic correlation with whether someone practices polyamory or not. Never assume.
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia

Click here for a Solo Poly view on hierarchical relationships
Click here to find out why the Polyamorous Misanthrope is feeling disgusted.

Last edited by nycindie; 01-10-2014 at 02:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 03:40 AM
Nadya Nadya is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 528

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 consept 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 polyamorous, because he himself is definitely not "open".
sharing my everyday life with
CJ: legal husband and
Mark: partner
Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 01:17 AM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,868

Originally Posted by CuriouslyPoly View Post
I assume that open relationships have little 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.

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" on 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 agree 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) is 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" - 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.

Originally Posted by CuriouslyPoly View Post
Again, how can one track a "polyamorous" relationship consistently over time when there's 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 the links support your assertation that people who think "that polyamorous relationships shouldn't have limits" are "not being honest". The Wikipedia articles that you link to ... 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).

Originally Posted by CuriouslyPoly View Post
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 happen to develop feelings on one of my close friends, but it's 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.)
JaneQ(Me): poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" V-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (25+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (7+ yrs) and MrS's BFF
SLeW: platonic hetero girlfriend and BFF
MrClean: hetero mono male, almost lover-friend to me, FWBs to SLeW, friends with MrS
+ "others" = FBs, FWBs, lover-friends, platonic G/BFs, boytoys, etc.

My poly blogs here:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe

Last edited by JaneQSmythe; 01-11-2014 at 02:18 AM. Reason: ETA: examples, puntuation, clarity...but NOT brevity
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 01:39 AM
willowstar willowstar is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 122

I think that the "polyamory" part relates to multiple and 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 when people marry, divorce, and remarry. The relationship parts may change, but dont 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 committment to the relationship. (Committment 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, 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.
Just keep swimming, Just keep swimming... ~ Dori

Willow ~ 47yo bi poly woman, married to Bear for 20 years
Bear-59 yo maybe poly/maybe mono straight man, still feeling it out
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 05:11 AM
Brighty18's Avatar
Brighty18 Brighty18 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Taos, NM
Posts: 14
Default way acadaid

Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Just because one person is in a Vee, it 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?
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2014, 08:12 AM
Eponine Eponine is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 125

Originally Posted by Brighty18 View Post
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 is sexual), but it'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.
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

polyarmory, relationship, v-type

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 06:11 PM.