Finding a secondary

[BonzaiBlitz]

Originally Posted by Dagferi

I am a poly women and I wouldn't date you. Why?

Because your wife gets to shape a dictate what our relationship can be. No matter what plans we would make, what crisis I may be having in my life, I wouldn't matter if your wife pulls the wife card. Fuck that.

No one but me and my partner get a say where things go. Who says poly relationships don't last. I have been with Butch 16 years and Murf 5. I do not plan on ending either relationship. I don't throw away men like used toys. Murf is just as import as Butch. He is just as much my husband as Butch. Butch gets no say in our relationship. None.

No sane woman is going to tolerate another woman telling her the way things can be in her relationship. Not even the most independent solo poly woman. Wives like yours are why married poly men can have a hell of a time finding women to date.

It's great that you have achieved this level of stability in your relationship.
However, my experience with poly thus far is that its foundational idea is "No one way is THE way," apart from abusive, manipulative, or nonconsensual nonmonogamy.

My identity as a person is based in my marriage, after nearly a decade together.
It is and always will be my primary relationship, whether I dabble in short-term dating or find a long-term secondary.
My wife has indicated that this also the case on her side.

So I understand the OP's dilemma.

This kind of teardown doesn't seem productive to finding a solution, as you seem to imply that the OP isn't practicing "real" poly because his primary has veto power.

My wife has veto power because my relationships with others affect her.
I have veto power because her relationships affect me.
I'm also skeptical that anyone can maintain an emotional brick wall between their relationships, especially if one gets rocky.

To date, my wife and I have only used veto power once each in our year-and-change of openness.
I asked her not to pursue a man who seemed like a sleazebag in the making, and less than a month later she thanked me after seeing him go full possessive asshole on a mutual friend.
She asked me not to pursue her best friend from high school, because she was afraid it would cause tension in their friendship, which predates us.

Hierarchies happen because time is a limited resource, and if your poly-ness started from a previously-monogamous relationship, it seems more likely to play out that way unless you do some serious discussing (serious to the point of taking a hammer to most of what defines your relationship).

[FallenAngelina]

Originally Posted by BonzaiBlitz

.. you seem to imply that the OP isn't practicing "real" poly because his primary has veto power.

No, Dagferi is saying that where there is veto power, there is by definition an all powerful primary relationship and resulting transitory secondary relationships. She isn't saying that one is real poly and the other is not, but she is pointing out that where there is a hierarchy (and certainly where there is veto power) the primary partners will only be attracting people who are willing to cast themselves as lesser-than, itinerant lovers. They are not going to attract self-possessed, confident, poly partners who gravitate toward long term-potential situations. Dlkenny says that his belief comes from his experience, but it's actually the other way around: his experience of lovers as short term comes from his belief that the nature of a secondary lover relationship is to be short lived. We have many examples in this forum community of "secondary" partners who are long term, so obviously dlkenny's premise is false.

That Casanova quote is saying: Lovers comes and go and I'll love you while you're here, but I expect you to come - and go.

That's all this discussion is about: pointing out the flawed premise, not claiming that there is one true way to practice polyamory.

[Ravenscroft]

Originally Posted by BonzaiBlitz

you seem to imply that the OP isn't practicing "real" poly because his primary has veto power.

You seem to be using the term incorrectly:

Originally Posted by BonzaiBlitz

I asked her ...
She asked me ...

The veto is the relational nuclear option -- "do as I say OR ELSE dire consequences shall ensue." Unless you are hiding some portion of your dynamic from us, what you have is NOT a veto.

Once upon a time, I was sliding into NRE with a very attractive woman named Julie. Anna took me aside (literally) & simply asked, "Are you sure you want to pursue this?"

I was about to make some smart-alecky reply when a part of my brain stepped back & looked objectively at Julie's life, & I realized she was a top-class Drama Queen, creating endless crises that coincidentally made her look (to casual observers at least) like a good person being endlessly victimized.

As this dawned on me, I blurted "oh, good lord, NO." A few days later, I formally broke off relating with Julie.

Anna was merely acting as my best friend. We never had a "veto," & in fact had decided that this would be counterproductive to communication. Now that I think about it, that sort of power would also contradict the trust inherent in fidelity. Therefore, I feel safe saying that "veto power" has no place in polyamory OR polyfidelity.

Originally Posted by BonzaiBlitz

Hierarchies happen because time is a limited resource

Yes, & that is how I have applied "hierarchy" in my own life.

However, it's NOT the only usage, & perhaps a minority opinion. Commonly, "hierarchy" is used to protect the Sacred Dyad, the couple front, the preexisting two-person relationship simply because it's preexisting.

Not invalid, of course, but running directly against any chance for any two relationships to be in any way equal. It's like Animal Farm--

ALL PIGS ARE EQUAL

SOME PIGS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

[anamikanon]

Originally Posted by dlkenny

It isn't flawed thinking its the result of experience. As Karen pointed out its not that I don't want something that lasts a long time, it is the nature of the type of relationship that the relationships with my girlfriends tend to be more fluid than the one with my wife.

I think the problem consistently with the various descriptions AND this explanation appears to be that you are predicting what a new relationship will be even before there is a second person in it - in effect, you are saying the second person does not matter and is irrelevant and the relationship is basically between you and your imagination. You are saying you know what the other person will be like, and how little they will mean to you - before even meeting the other person. While people may be fine with transient relationships or being secondary, no one likes being a "nobody" - at least no one has an ambition to be a nobody to a partner while actively seeking partners. So the likely result of such a seeking is a "null set" - no one fits the profile. And if someone does, the chances of English not being their first language are higher than them being fine not mattering at all to a potential partner.

My guess is that you are trying to say that you are committed to your wife and will not harm your existing relationship with her to accommodate a developing relationship in the event of irreconcilable differences.

All the extra words you are using are clutter. She has veto power because you give it to her - she can hardly lock you in the home if you disobey. Making the veto explicit makes it sound like a likelihood and additional person your partner must please rather than the importance you give that relationship. More like seeking a relationship with a permanent censor.

In my view, stating your current status clearly ought to be adequate for an introduction rather than predict your entire relationship before having a partner. While a woman will not want to be a "nobody" in a relationship, the chances of a woman actually liking the trait of being considerate to an existing partner are slightly higher. By the time the relationship is established, you will have opportunities to experience the dynamics and come to more realistic understandings well beyond the scope of a dating profile.

For example, it could well be that with time, both your partners matter deeply and you wouldn't want to hurt either. Or that she isn't suitable for other reasons though your wife has no problems with her. Life has no guarantees. There is also no guarantee that it takes having a second partner to hurt an existing one. Many monogamous relationships manage it just fine between two people. So don't get carried away with the predicting. Don't fixate on one aspect as the be all and end all of a relationship. State your reality, state what you are willing to do and where there is a line that you will not cross and the woman should know.

Unless you are certain that your wife will cut off your relationships if they develop (in which case you have a bigger problem than dating profile) or that you are planning to discard women - no reason needed (in which case your current profile is public service) - you probably should not comment on the duration of potential relationships at all.

[anamikanon]

And I am saying this as someone who actually vetoed the only time her partner tried to have another relationship. It was getting toxic, he was not able to deal with either relationships and everyone was traumatized. We had absolutely no discussion on poly or how we would go about it. He had not "given" me veto power, nor had I asked for it. The situation reached a point where I strongly suggested that he end it with her. It wasn't working. He ended it. If he hadn't, the next step would be telling him point blank that if he wanted to be welcome in my home again, that toxic mess had to go.

What I am saying is that a veto can manifest out of thin air if you do something your partner cannot take and they are willing to end things with you unless you fix it. It will succeed if you want the partner more than whatever they are opposing or it will fail. In my experience with relationships - whether you agree on veto powers or you don't, the end result will be near identical. If you lose interest in a partner you gave veto power to, giving her the power won't stop you, you'll disobey and let her deal with it. All that the "veto" indicates is that you place a very high importance on your partner's well being. But the minute you make it explicit to a complete stranger, it appears like you can't even shake hands without waiting for the other shoe to fall. Raises questions about what you are doing on a dating site at all. More efficient for her to assign an appropriate lover to you.

[LoveBunny]

Originally Posted by FallenAngelina

Also, get off Tinder. Tinder is about hookups and, if you're lucky, regular mono dating. OKCupid is where you want to be if you're serious about meeting poly and open minded, relationship oriented women online.

This seems to be changing, at least in my area and among us 40-somethings. Lots of people using Tinder to make real connections. One of my friends is about to marry her Tinder guy. I'm also seeing more open relationships on there, but it's still pretty exclusively heterosexual. Some of my friends are talking about Bumble, but I haven't tried it.