life long commitment

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my experience, many women are interested in dating to find a life companion to grow old with. As a divorced person, I question my ability and desire to commit to life long companionship again. When I am honest about this with potential dating partners, they seem to take it as giving up on the relationship before it begins. I don't want to use women or waste their time and energy in pursuit of a life long companion, but that seems to be practically inevitable in monogamy if one is not willing to commit and exclude the potential of becoming interested in new people. I am curious what polyamorists would have to say about this issue. Can you identify enough with monogamy to understand why some people want exclusive, committed relationships and, if so, can you think of any way to respect this without committing to sacrificing all other potential relationships for as long as you honor the commitment (without cheating)? I.e. is polyamory the only way to be honest without hurting feelings? BTW, no need to explain that some people are naturally monogamous because I've heard that enough and I don't really believe it anyway (otherwise serial monogamy wouldn't be possible, imo).
 
in monogamy if one is not willing to commit and exclude the potential of becoming interested in new people. .

You don't seem to understand the concept of true monogamy from the stand point of a truly monogamous person. If a person is truly monogamous then they don't need the "will" to do these things..it just happens naturally and unconciously. That being said I don't automatically tie life long commitments with the idea of monogamy. I see monogamy as "only forming a connection with one person at a time". Serial monogamy is much more common than life long monogamy.

Wow I used the monogamy a lot in this comment!!
 
I don't see why it has to be inevitable in monogamy to commit for life. Why not just tell them that? Why not just say you don't want life long companionship. Poly and mono relationship dynamics have nothing to do with this choice. You can want something for life or not and be either.
 
Why are you so opposed to a life-long relationship? I think this is the big question here? While I wouldn't go into a relationship with it having to be life-long, if someone was completely against the idea from the outset how could I open myself up emotionally to that person knowing that I had a finite time to be involved and then he would be moving on?

If after a certain period of time being in a relationship one party is wanting serious commitment and the other isn't that's when you address the issue. I don't think you can definitively know how you will feel after giving yourself honestly and lovingly in a relationship.

If all you want is a casual relationship (or relationships) that's a different matter but I would have thought there would be others out there looking for something similar.
 
. . . I don't automatically tie life long commitments with the idea of monogamy. I see monogamy as "only forming a connection with one person at a time".

I was thinking the same thing! Monogamy doesn't automatically mean "forever." It just means one at a time. A forever/life-long relationship can be either poly or mono, and monogamy can be either life-long, or not. What does one have to do with the other? :confused:
 
Lots of people assume that monogamy equals a lifelong committment. Sure, if that assumption is examined, the two are not automatically connected. But it's a common idea in the mainstream. I've also heard many people, some divorced, some widowed, say that they are just not interested in committing to another lifelong, or even long term, relationship.

I think it's a good thing you realize this about yourself. Yes, you may find that being up front about it limits who might respond to you. But ethically, it seems like the right thing to do.
 
Why are you so opposed to a life-long relationship? I think this is the big question here? While I wouldn't go into a relationship with it having to be life-long, if someone was completely against the idea from the outset how could I open myself up emotionally to that person knowing that I had a finite time to be involved and then he would be moving on?

If after a certain period of time being in a relationship one party is wanting serious commitment and the other isn't that's when you address the issue. I don't think you can definitively know how you will feel after giving yourself honestly and lovingly in a relationship.

If all you want is a casual relationship (or relationships) that's a different matter but I would have thought there would be others out there looking for something similar.
Thanks to everyone for thoughtful responses. I used to think that monogamy doesn't have to be for life (maybe why I chose the name 'serialmonogamist') but strangely it disappointed me when my marriage ended. In any case, what sage says to question why I'm opposed to a life long relationship resonates with why potential partners are suspicious of me. I guess I just can't see defining myself with another person the way I once did with my (ex) spouse. It's not that I just arbitrarily want to end any relationship before I get old. I also don't see myself ever definitely saying, "well, there's no one else in this life I could have dated." It seems like there are always potential partners who slip by because of circumstances of some sort or others. So when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship, you are excluding the possibility of entertaining any other relationship potential. Yet if you don't desire (simultaneous) polyamory, then the question is whether you should identify with polyamory or monogamy. Or can you be both?
 
In my experience, many women are interested in dating to find a life companion to grow old with. As a divorced person, I question my ability and desire to commit to life long companionship again. When I am honest about this with potential dating partners, they seem to take it as giving up on the relationship before it begins.

I'm someone whose interested in dating to find a life companion to grow old with. I appreciate it when a guy lets me know upfront that's not an interest of his. I don't see it as giving up on a relationship before it begins. Frankly, I don't care why he's not interested in a life long commitment anymore than I feel the need to explain or justify why I am. So, as you noted....why should or would either of us want to waste time when what we want is different and opposite??!! :confused: Yes, you or I may lose some potential dates based on either of our stances. But, it wouldn't be a good match to start with because of that basic difference. For me, being polyamorous could make a difference, because as long as I had a primary partner who wanted a long term committed relationship with me, I might be open to having someone else in my life who wanted a more casual "dating" relationship.
 
Last edited:
........... So when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship, you are excluding the possibility of entertaining any other relationship potential. Yet if you don't desire (simultaneous) polyamory, then the question is whether you should identify with polyamory or monogamy. Or can you be both?

Hey Serial (cereal ? :) )

What are you getting at here ?
What do you mean when you say "don't desire SIMULTANEOUS poly" ?

I think the whole 'commitment' thing is largely cultural and difficult to discuss without evoking gender specific emotions.

I think commitment to ANYTHING has to be much more variable than people want to allow for. Things change. People change. You can't logically make some crystal ball projection indefinitely out into the future as if the future were not subject to those changes.

We 'commit' to something because we see win-win(s) in it and when that stops being the case we do have to reevaluate what makes the most sense (for all). Otherwise 'commitment' is nothing more than a TRAP !

I tend to 'commit' to today - and the start of tomorrow. My vision simply doesn't extend beyond that.

That said - my mate and I have been together since teenagers - but it's always been one day at a time. Or at least - till our 'shared' responsibilities lapsed (kids). That's a mutual commitment.

GS
 
Hey Serial (cereal ? :) )
"Cereal?" "Serial monogamy" is a self-evident concept isn't it? It's when people have one partner at a time but not one partner (only) for life.

What are you getting at here ?
What do you mean when you say "don't desire SIMULTANEOUS poly" ?
In my personal situation, what I mean is that I have been married and divorced and now I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.

I think the whole 'commitment' thing is largely cultural and difficult to discuss without evoking gender specific emotions.
I'm not sure what this means or why you're saying it. I'm not trying to evoke emotions. I'm just trying to get insight into relationships beyond my own limited point of view.

I think commitment to ANYTHING has to be much more variable than people want to allow for. Things change. People change. You can't logically make some crystal ball projection indefinitely out into the future as if the future were not subject to those changes.
Yeah, that's the way I thought of commitment when I was 20. Gradually it evolved into a stronger concept. I don't think commitment is black and white, i.e. you're either committed or you're not. Someone could commit to a 5 year relationship, but it might be very painful when you end it after 5 years. The whole thing confuses me because it seems like relationships can only work if you live in the moment and avoid planning for the future.

That said - my mate and I have been together since teenagers - but it's always been one day at a time. Or at least - till our 'shared' responsibilities lapsed (kids). That's a mutual commitment.
Well, it can be a shock when one person cashes in on their freedom one day to leave. Who knows why people get sick of each other and don't want to be around the other anymore but it happens. How do you not promise you'll love someone forever out of honesty and not ruin what you have with them in the present?
 
. . . I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.
If you can't see yourself able to have more than one relationship at a time, how the hell would you even remotely call that poly?
 
In my personal situation, what I mean is that I have been married and divorced and now I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.


Serial......Polyamory doesn't necessarily mean that someone is making a life long commitment to multiple partners simultaneously. One could have a Primary, or more than one Primary, lifelong partner(s), a Primary or more than one Primary with whom there's not a lifelong commitment, a Secondary partner with or without a long term commitment, etc., etc. Are you trying to say that you could see yourself loving more than one person at a time but not wanting the complications that can go with carrying on loving relationships with different partners simultaneously??
 
Last edited:
Oh, wait a minute. I just re-read Serial's post...

I think what he means is that since he feels he can't make a life-long commitment, he must be poly -- except for only being able to do that with one person at a time. If I am reading that correctly, it means that he has made the erroneous assumption that polyamorous relationships cannot be life-long.

I don't see myself dating more than one person at a time, but I also don't see myself committing again to a life long relationship the way I did when I was married. So I guess it means I'm poly but can't handle more than one relationship at a time.

Yeah, and here he seems to say that a life-long partnership automatically means monogamy, as if polyamory could never be that:
. . . when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship . . .

Do I have this right, Serialmonogamist?
 
Last edited:
Oh, wait a minute. I just re-read Serial's post...

I think what he means is that since he feels he can't make a life-long commitment, he must be poly -- except for only being able to do that with one person at a time. If I am reading that correctly, it means that he has made the erroneous assumption that polyamorous relationships cannot be life-long.


Yeah, and here he seems to say that a life-long partnership automatically means monogamy, as if polyamory could never be that:

Do I have this right, Serialmonogamist?
Why does the multiquote function reverse the order of the posts? No matter, you are getting closer. I wouldn't say that I can't make a lifelong commitment, because I did that when I was married by having kids. I do think I'm poly, though, in the sense that I have the potential to love more than one person in a lifetime. However, I am monogamous in the sense that I can't deal with the complexity of more than one relationship at a time. It's really a problem because I really don't like having to worry about getting into a relationship and then losing it at some point, but I'd also be dishonest to say that I couldn't see myself with more than one person for the rest of my life.

Serial......Polyamory doesn't necessarily mean that someone is making a life long commitment to multiple partners simultaneously. One could have a Primary, or more than one Primary, lifelong partner(s), a Primary or more than one Primary with whom there's not a lifelong commitment, a Secondary partner with or without a long term commitment, etc., etc. Are you trying to say that you could see yourself loving more than one person at a time but not wanting the complications that can go with carrying on loving relationships with different partners simultaneously??
I know that polyamory and (lifelong) commitment are completely independent concepts. Yes, I don't just think that I, personally, am capable of (potentially) loving more than one person at a time, but I believe it is universally possible (sorry to those who find universalizing pushy). I once had a gf start breaking up with me because she was having feelings for an old bf and I told her it was ok b/c it is possible to have feelings for more than one person at the same time. She said that's not how she works, but I couldn't believe that suddenly all her feelings for me would end because she felt something for the other guy. I think fear of "slut-stigma" causes people to block out love for more than one person at a time, when they do. I'm not a person who naturally reacts to stigmas and taboos, so I'm maybe somewhat more aware of their effects. Anyway, hope this clarifies my position - and thanks for your interest.

If you can't see yourself able to have more than one relationship at a time, how the hell would you even remotely call that poly?
How (the hell) can someone call themselves mono if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life?
 
I wouldn't say that I can't make a lifelong commitment, because I did that when I was married by having kids.
Okay, whatever -- whether you can't, won't, or don't want to wasn't the point of my sentence. It was asking whether you think of monogamy as a life-long thing and polyamory as short-term or temporary.

I do think I'm poly, though, in the sense that I have the potential to love more than one person in a lifetime.
But that's not poly, really. Polyamory is about cultivating multiple loving relationships and being involved with more than one at a time. You can have had numerous relationships in a lifetime and still be monogamous -- one does not equal the other.

How (the hell) can someone call themselves mono if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life?
If you think of monogamy and polyamory as structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!

To clarify, I am simply a human being who can choose to be monogamous or polyamorous in my relationships. I have always been monogamous (meaning that was my choice, not my nature) until last year at the age of 50, when I chose to explore polyamory. Does that mean that in my 35-some-odd years of dating and being single -- and MONOGAMOUS -- that I was only with one person and expected it to last forever? No, of course not. I was monogamous in all of my committed relationships. It's simply a way of relating, it's not a contract for the rest of your life.
 
Last edited:
Okay, whatever -- whether you can't, won't, or don't want to wasn't the point of my sentence. It was asking whether you think of monogamy as a life-long thing and polyamory as short-term or temporary.
I think of them as independent concepts. I think you could have multiple lifelong commitments, yes. Why would you assume that because you have more than one lover that they have to be temporary?

But that's not poly, really. Polyamory is about cultivating multiple loving relationships and being involved with more than one at a time. You can have had numerous relationships in a lifetime and still be monogamous -- one does not equal the other.
My view is that serial monogamy is a type of polyamory where you exclude past and future lovers from your life while being with one at a time.

If you think of monogamy and polyamory is merely structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!
I'm not sure what you mean here.

To clarify, I am simply a human being who can choose to be monogamous or polyamorous in my relationships. I have always been monogamous (meaning that was my choice, not my nature) until last year at the age of 50, when I chose to explore polyamory. Does that mean that in my 35-some-odd years of dating and being single -- and MONOGAMOUS -- that I was only with one person and expected it to last forever? No, of course not. I was monogamous in all of my committed relationships. It's simply a way of relating, it's not a contract for the rest of your life.
I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person. This is something I've been dealing with through my divorce. It is easy to say that someone isn't/wasn't your soulmate because things didn't work out but what do you call positive memories where you find the same person who loved them deeply still living inside your heart? I don't think that person is ever going to die so am I really monogamous considering I am lonely and would like a new relationship? How do you think it works when you try to have a monogamous relationship while being honest that you will always worship the memories of being with your ex (even though the relationship is long gone)? I'm sure many people (mono and poly) would call it unhealthy not to want to dispose of the parts of your heart rooted in past relationships, but if it isn't (and I don't believe it is), then polyamory would be a way to have a new relationship without disavowing the broken one.
 
Last edited:
while ideas (mine first of all) are getting clearer and clearer through important posts going on here, i felt in jumping in to add:

there are some couples (don't know what about any poly, actually) who begin a marriage/union fixing a determined period to their relationship; for instance, one year plus one day: on that day they will "decide" if to renew their union or to split. every couple chose the length of their first/sec/third/etc. steps relationship.
do you think you would make someone happier with this?
can you imagine some results?
 
Why would you assume that because you have more than one lover that they have to be temporary?
I don't. I thought you did, and so I was asking you. It seemed that you equate monogamy with life-long and polyamory with... not that. Here is where I tried to figure you out on that point:
. . . here he seems to say that a life-long partnership automatically means monogamy, as if polyamory could never be that:
. . . when you commit to a potentially lifelong (monogamous) relationship
It still seems to me that you see monogamy as something that is meant to last forever.

My view is that serial monogamy is a type of polyamory where you exclude past and future lovers from your life while being with one at a time.
Well, that's interesting. Never would have thought of it that way. But then you wouldn't need to learn about managing poly relationships, befriending metamours, sharing time, households, responsibilities, and so on, as many of the poly peeps here do. You'd really just be living monogamously and having memories and past experiences of former relationships to draw on -- nothing new there. I really don't think that's a very useful way of looking at sequences of monogamous relationships. What good does it do you to think of it as polyamory?

If you think of monogamy and polyamory as structures or blueprints for relationships and not (or not just) a personality trait, you would see it is possible!
I'm not sure what you mean here.
I was offering another perspective. What I meant was this: relationships can be either monogamous or polyamorous. Those are structures or mating practices. If you look at it that way, instead of whether or not someone identifies as poly or mono, you can see that we can choose to be (in the sense of how we live) either one, in numerous relationships during the course of a lifetime. The practices within a relationship, whether it is two people devoted only to each other or any number of people in a poly tangle, does not determine whether it lasts forever or not. It is simply a reflection of desires and parameters for a certain type of commitment. This was my answer to your question about how someone could call themselves mono "if they can feel attracted to and date more than one person in their life." You know, if I meet someone, enter into a relationship with them and we choose monogamy as the structure for our relationship, it doesn't mean we are committing to be together for a lifetime (unless, of course, it reaches that point and we do make that commitment). But monogamy doesn't require that. It's a just a structure for a relationship of two people to be only involved with each other and no one else. Doesn't mean there can't be other mono relationships to follow.

(I don't believe people inherently are or are not polyamorous or monogamous, although I do believe we can have certain experiences, cultural influences, and/or levels of open-mindedness or rebellion that would sway a person toward one practice or another)

I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person. . . . what do you call positive memories where you find the same person who loved them deeply still living inside your heart? I don't think that person is ever going to die so am I really monogamous considering I am lonely and would like a new relationship?
I don't believe in soulmates. I think of love as an endless pool within myself. When I love someone, it means I have let them get close enough to me to touch that pool of love I have inside me. Some people immerse themselves more deeply than others, but once they've reached it, it cannot be undone. But people change, move on, die, etc., and relationships end. And many loving relationships are just meant to bless my life for a finite period of time. The path to my heart will always be there, although with time it will eventually be overgrown with thickets and weeds. Then someday someone else will blaze another path to my heart. All the people I've loved, whether platonic friends, family, or those with whom I've been sexually intimate, all accessed the very same pool and each has made their own trail to it (and therefore, to the center of me). How sad if it wasn't that way. The love I feel, the depth to which I feel it, and the imprint they have made on me have nothing whatsoever to do with whether I choose to have monogamous or polyamorous relationships in my life.
 
Last edited:
This is all so confusing that I can't even really make sense of it.

Serial what is your current relationship status?

You seem to be completely unaware that when people are in a loving relationship together feelings and connections develop to a point where you just can't walk away because someone better comes along. This is why women would be extremely cautious about getting into a relationship with you. Even I (who has a love/hate relationships with polyamory) can see that polyamory works because new love can be explored without having to destroy an existing loving relationship.
 
...........
I think of true monogamy as meaning you can't ever stop loving someone enough to find another person.

Hey Serial,

I clipped this small snippet but there's many others equally suitable strewn throughout your posts on this thread.

What I'm getting over here is that you may be seriously confused about the meanings/implications of monogamy, polyamory - and maybe even love !
Or insisting on creating your own definitions ?

I think this is why a number of readers are struggling to understand you and trying to explain some basics to you.

Relationships are not defined/classified by their duration.
I'm not sure "love" ever "stops" ,but evolves. When we've truly loved someone there's a part of them - that piece we did love - that we'll always love. But like we say in so many other places and topics - life (or people) is/are not static. We can well 'love' someone - i.e. wish them nothing but happiness and success in their life and contribute to that when we can, and still not be able to live with them or tolerate negative aspects they've taken on.

You seem to state that you are incapable of literally 'seeing' another person when you ...........'love' ? one person. You become blind to the external world of love potential. i.e. the very definition of a monogamous person.

That's perfectly fine. But not to be confused with polyamory.

GS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top