Starting a relationship, knowing it will also end--seems weird

Everything ends

Good evening,
I have a primary relationship that I am happy in, and my husband and I have been talking a lot about what it would look like if we weren't monogamous. In some ways I can see a lot of positive things that could come from this, balanced with some challenges as well.

One thing that has been kind of a mental road block to me is, even if we weren't monogamous, I would prefer that our marriage was the primary relationship for both of us. I'm afraid of risking that. I also have lived in the mono-get-married-and-stay-together-for-life model that it seems really strange to entertain the idea of pursuing another relationship knowing that it will end at some point. Maybe mutually and gracefully, and maybe not.

Why would I sign up for a relationship that has a shelf life from the start? It sounds painful. Does this concern make sense to anyone? Does everyone really end up with a loving extended family of ex-lovers? Or do they end up with a collection of uncomfortable exes that pop up periodically to cause problems?

~darkling

Where there is meeting, there is parting.
Impermanence is one of the "three marks of existence" according to the Buddha.
Every relationship has a shelf life- whether it is defined by old age, by unexpected illness, by accident or by a falling out.
Thee is no need to ever stop loving any of your former partners- even if contact no longer continues.
 
Where there is meeting, there is parting.
Impermanence is one of the "three marks of existence" according to the Buddha.
Every relationship has a shelf life- whether it is defined by old age, by unexpected illness, by accident or by a falling out.
Thee is no need to ever stop loving any of your former partners- even if contact no longer continues.

Having said this- my current "primary partner' is a real best friend.
I cant imagine doing anything that would hurt her and I see our relationship in terms of mutual support. What can I do to bring her happiness and strength? How could I be happy o]if this relationship died off?

We both stray- but only with those we feel affectionate towards. Kindness is the key.

True love hinges on what we give to our partner(s), not what we take from her/him/them.
 
Just because a relationship ends...doesn't mean that it failed...

Enjoy what you get out of your new relationships. If it ends, don't forget how much you've learned about yourself in the process and use that information to pad any pain the breakup caused.

Then go out and do it again.
 
Just because a relationship ends...doesn't mean that it failed...

Enjoy what you get out of your new relationships. If it ends, don't forget how much you've learned about yourself in the process and use that information to pad any pain the breakup caused.

Then go out and do it again.

Yes, indeed!
 
Funny. Just to give another perspective, when my ex and I split after 30 years, I wanted lovers, I wanted sex of different kinds, kink, passion, new ideas coming from the heads of new people. I did NOT want another serious full time lover.

But the universe had different ideas for me, and soon after I began dating I met a woman I am still with almost 5 years later. However, I kept dating and enjoyed the company of a few dozen others along the way.

We could get married in my state of Mass., but I don't want to. My other partner is already married and has a very good relationship with his wife. We've been together almost 2 years with everything going so well, I see no end in sight for him and me either. I've stopped trying to date. I feel set, basically, unless somehow the universe has different ideas for me once again.

I started my life over at age 54. Took guts, I suppose, but I just needed more than my ex could provide me with. We'd grown apart, and though our sex life together was spectacular, I needed more intimacy. I was soooo tired of his baggage.
 
I think your very smart to consider there will more than likely be an end to any additional relationships to ur marriage.

I have known people who are poly their whole lives. And for the most part they manage a secondary relationship well and have made life long partners / friends.

however, I have been into polyamourous relationships and I've been married for 21 years as well. Both of those relationships ended and of course they still say they will always love me then will always be friends, but it still hurts. It also does take away from your primary relationship.its not supposed to take away from your primary relationship, however if there are problems with your secondary relationships who are you going to turn to? Probably your primary relationship which will put a strain on that.

currently, I am reconsidering if I should go back to a monogamous marriage with my husband. Being poly is very exciting and a lot of fun but you have to wonder if it's worth the pain. I'm sure many people on the site will disagree with me but it is a reality. If you're willing to be hurt and take a chance on losing faith in love then maybe it's worth it for you? You have to be the one to ultimately make that decision. Since you're already questioning that there may be an end to a secondary relationship maybe you have enough wisdom to not get too involved with people and risk getting hurt. If you can clearly separate you are feelings and set boundaries then maybe it is worth it for you.
 
I think your very smart to consider there will more than likely be an end to any additional relationships to ur marriage.

I have known people who are poly their whole lives. And for the most part they manage a secondary relationship well and have made life long partners / friends.

however, I have been into polyamourous relationships and I've been married for 21 years as well. Both of those relationships ended and of course they still say they will always love me then will always be friends, but it still hurts. It also does take away from your primary relationship.its not supposed to take away from your primary relationship, however if there are problems with your secondary relationships who are you going to turn to? Probably your primary relationship which will put a strain on that.

currently, I am reconsidering if I should go back to a monogamous marriage with my husband. Being poly is very exciting and a lot of fun but you have to wonder if it's worth the pain. I'm sure many people on the site will disagree with me but it is a reality. If you're willing to be hurt and take a chance on losing faith in love then maybe it's worth it for you? You have to be the one to ultimately make that decision. Since you're already questioning that there may be an end to a secondary relationship maybe you have enough wisdom to not get too involved with people and risk getting hurt. If you can clearly separate you are feelings and set boundaries then maybe it is worth it for you.

Well said. I'm in full agreement.
 
I didnt lose faith in love when I dated so many guys without finding one who really worked for me, and vice versa. Yes, it was very frustrating. Yes, there are a lot of weirdos and horny jerks out there. I just kept at it, and though I was so lucky to find miss pixi when I was just starting out, I finally found Ginger after 3 years of looking and working at the job of dating.

I just don't get the idea that my primary relationship with miss pixi is secure and will never end, whereas my relationship with my married bf has a short shelf life. I feel quite compatible with both, and we all have a good handle on time sharing, etc. Ginger is in my age bracket and we've both BTDT with having kids, so we don't have disparate life goals.
 
Last edited:
Okay, this may be a thought from way out in left field, but there seems to be something odd going on with the term, 'relationship' here.

It seems to me that people have "thingified" relationships, maybe as an accident of grammar: "She and I have a relationship," as though the relationship is some fragile thing that two people might bring into existence . . . and which might blink out of existence again at any time, after which there's just nothing at all.

In conventional terms, there are two, off-the-shelf varieties of relationship: romance and friendship, and each is carefully defined in terms of roles and expectations, particular degrees and kinds (and limits) of intimacy and commitment.

A life-long, committed, monogamous romantic relationship is widely supposed to be like the rarest and most precious of gems that two people might have. (I suppose they should keep in a safe-deposit box along with a copy of the deed to their house.)

Doesn't that idea seem just a little bizarre and, when you look closely, kind of offensive? What seems to get lost is that the parties to any given relationships are persons and that, while the ways in which they relate to one another - the scope of what they share and the boundaries they set - may change, sometimes quite drastically and abruptly, they remain two persons who connect to one another in their own way.

For me, part of the delight of becoming poly is the opportunity to examine all my expectations and habits of thought about relationships, and especially unbundle the two, off-the-shelf models of relationship and, above all, to de-thingify them.

It has been helpful to me to think of the possible ways of relating to another person as a wide field of possibilities - or, if you want to get all math geeky about it, an n-dimensional space of possibilities. Off-the-shelf conventional friendship and off-the-shelf conventional romance are tiny little corners of that space.

Any two people can negotiate their own ways of navigating those possibilities together . . . and may renegotiate and renegotiate as they go.

The point is that they do not have a relationship, but that they relate to one another. If one or another or both of them change the terms of the relationship, drastically and abruptly, they are still relating to one another, in a sense, if very differently.

Let me put it this way: When my girlfriend broke up with me, just over a year ago, I didn't see it as an end, as throwing away some thing we once had, leaving nothing.

No, there was still and will always be an opening between us, a connection, even if we are never physically intimate again, even if we see one another only occasionally. Whenever I think of her, it is always with affection.

Too long? Didn't read? Well, here's the upshot: Stop thinking of a relationship as a thing that may blink out of existence; stop pursuing any particular, off-the-shelf model of relationship. Instead, invest in relating to other people, and find with each of them your very own way of being open to one another.

EDIT:
I would add that two people may work out their own trajectory through the n-dimensional relation-space as well. How much misery has been occasioned by the assumption that a relationship, to become a thing worth having, must follow a single clear trajectory toward the tiny little corner labeled "romance"? And how many guys have gotten bent out of shape by finding themselves suddenly diverted over to that other tiny little corner, "the friend zone"? Much of that misery and being-bent-out-of-shape could be avoided by just accepting that two people can carve out their own particular place anywhere in that field of possibilities and take any path to get there . . . and it doesn't even have to be a straight line!
 
Last edited:
(I suppose they should keep in a safe-deposit box along with a copy of the deed to their house.)

ooo that's a good idea, I should really keep a copy of our house title in the safety deposit box... But not with our relationship, because then I would have to get a key and go to the bank every time I want to see it. And the bank isn't open on Sundays.

Stop thinking of a relationship as a thing that may blink out of existence; stop pursuing any particular, off-the-shelf model of relationship. Instead, invest in relating to other people, and find with each of them your very own way of being open to one another.

I agree with the "off-the-shelf" bit, and with relating to people as people first.

Abstraction is an important feature of human thinking. Without abstraction, there would be no such thing as "the environment." There's just a bunch of plants and animals, rocks and atmosphere, relating. But "protecting the environment" is a very good idea. It's beneficial to all those plants and animals, not to mention the people, to think of "the environment" as a thing that exists. And it does, abstractly. And relationships also "exists" -- abstractly. There would be no such thing as "a family," just a bunch of people with similar DNA living under the same roof or maybe even just getting together at Christmas. Money, companies, universities, governments, countries, laws..... Indeed, human society is built upon abstractions and treating them like they're real things that have objective existence outside of the people who relate to them. But of course, if you take all the people off the planet, then all the paper notes and metal coins are just trinkets, the companies and universities are just empty buildings, governments and laws are just scribbles on paper, countries are just colourful lines drawn on maps. So yeah, take away the spouses and marriage is just a fancy certificate. But the people are there, and marriage is so much more than that fancy certificate.

I do find that in some cases, thinking of "the relationship" as something to nurture also has practical value. No, it should not be treated as the be-all-end-all, a thing to be put on a pedestal above and beyond the people involved. But in so much as any abstract concept has any real existence, certain relationship types absolutely do.

For example, with Gralson working out of town all the time, it's easy to drift apart as we do our own thing in different parts of the world. Absence does not always make the heart grow fonder. Now, I don't need him and I don't need a marriage. I can be perfectly happy without either, with an adjustment period to mourn the loss of course. But I love him and I enjoy being married to him. Thing is, if I didn't make a point of encouraging us to nurture "our marriage," this drifting apart would just continue unabated. Because, by the very nature of drifting apart, the more it happens, the less it bothers you, and the less it's worth the effort to reverse.

I don't want to drift apart, and the only way I can think of to prevent that is to think of "the relationship" as a thing to nurture. Because despite the drift that sometimes happens, we do still nurture each other, we still communicate and connect and ... relate. But the way we relate changes when we don't make a concentrated effort to focus our intent.

In a nutshell, there are features of "he" and "I" that are great, but there are also features of "how we relate" (i.e. "our relationship") that are enjoyable in their own right, and I see nothing objectionable about calling those very real features a "thing." It's important to realize that "the relationship" isn't some thing existing over there, all by itself, with or without us. It's a thing existing between us.
 
Last edited:
This is in danger of becoming a digression, so I'll just make a couple of points in reply then back away, slowly.

Abstraction is an important feature of human thinking. Without abstraction, there would be no such thing as "the environment." There's just a bunch of plants and animals, rocks and atmosphere, relating. But "protecting the environment" is a very good idea. It's beneficial to all those plants and animals, not to mention the people, to think of "the environment" as a thing that exists. And it does, abstractly. And relationships also "exists" -- abstractly. There would be no such thing as "a family," just a bunch of people with similar DNA living under the same roof or maybe even just getting together at Christmas. Money, companies, universities, governments, countries, laws..... Indeed, human society is built upon abstractions and treating them like they're real things that have objective existence outside of the people who relate to them. But of course, if you take all the people off the planet, then all the paper notes and metal coins are just trinkets, the companies and universities are just empty buildings, governments and laws are just scribbles on paper, countries are just colourful lines drawn on maps. So yeah, take away the spouses and marriage is just a fancy certificate. But the people are there, and marriage is so much more than that fancy certificate.

. . . .

In a nutshell, there are features of "he" and "I" that are great, but there are also features of "how we relate" (i.e. "our relationship") that are enjoyable in their own right, and I see nothing objectionable about calling those very real features a "thing." It's important to realize that "the relationship" isn't some thing existing over there, all by itself, with or without us. It's a thing existing between us.

It's funny, but my concerns about "thingification" of abstract concepts really began by thinking about how people use and misuse the term, "the environment" . . . a term that can be a useful short-hand for "our surroundings, on which we depend and which we may alter, which are shaped and supported by various complex systems operating at various scales" or even "particular places and creatures we care about, for various reasons."

The danger arises, I think, when this bit of useful shorthand comes to be treated as the name of a thing: we too often talk about "the Environment" as a fragile object, over there, something that - oddly - can only ever be damaged or destroyed by human activity. That's just weird, and not very useful for making actual decisions.

(One prominent book in my field, related to environmental policy, begins with the blunt statement, "There is no such thing as 'the environment'." It concludes with the idea of approaching how we think about our environments by way of narrative, which honors the particularity of places and the complexity of how we relate to those places.)

I think much the same applies to 'relationship', which can be useful short-hand for "the way you and I relate to each other as people, grounded in our recognition of one another's humanity and individuality, with all the various feelings and boundaries and commitments we establish between us."

The focus then is on the people and their mutual recognition and care, rather than on the abstraction.

When the abstraction is treated as a separate thing, as the thing, as a fragile thing that is to be protected, then it's too easy to lose sight of the people involved, in their individuality.

We may owe this tendency to thingify abstract concepts to the Greeks, most especially Plato. It's a quirk of Greek grammar that you can turn an adjective into a noun just by plunking an article down in front of it - so 'beautiful' becomes 'the Beautiful'.

In The Symposium - which really just means "drinking party" - Plato puts Socrates in the middle of a feast. The guests decide that, before they start drinking in earnest - with the explicit goal of getting shit-faced - they should talk about something interesting.

They settle into a discussion of the nature of love.

When Socrates' turn comes around, he sets out the much-misunderstood idea of what is now called "Platonic love." When people use that term, these days, they mean love that does not involve sex. That's part of what Plato has in mind, but not the whole of it . . . and not the worst of it.

What we should love, Plato has Socrates say, is the Beautiful itself, the abstract, changeless form of beauty, rather than the person who is beautiful. Given the passage of time, that person will no longer be beautiful, and what will our love be worth?

So, Platonic love is not about how two ordinary, particular, temporary, flawed people relate to one another in their individuality. No, all of that is belittled and obscured by a singular obsession with an abstraction. Any particular beloved person is, in that sense, disposable: as soon as that individual no longer stands as an embodiment of the Beautiful, he or she is to be discarded in favor of some younger beloved one who, for the moment, embodies the Beautiful.
 
Last edited:
Any particular beloved person is, in that sense, disposable: as soon as that individual no longer stands as an embodiment of the Beautiful, he or she is to be discarded in favor of some younger beloved one who, for the moment, embodies the Beautiful.

And of course, for the Greeks, the Beautiful was a newly adolescent boy, loved, and nearly worshiped, by men. When that boy became a man, he may have been discarded for someone younger, as he, himself, then set about loving a boy. http://www.hinsdale86.org/staff/jrollers/apah/arthistoryimages/Greek15.jpg
 
And of course, for the Greeks, the Beautiful was a newly adolescent boy, loved, and nearly worshiped, by men. When that boy became a man, he may have been discarded for someone younger, as he, himself, then set about loving a boy. http://www.hinsdale86.org/staff/jrollers/apah/arthistoryimages/Greek15.jpg

Yeah, that's fairly explicit in The Symposium and in Phaedrus and . . .

It's not quite right to attribute pederasty - which would be the technical term for it, I suppose ('erastes' = 'lover') - to "the Greeks" in general. It was more of an Athenian thing. Aristotle, who grew up in Macedonia, had no tolerance for the practice.

Plato may have done a good thing by taking sex out of such relationships. I'm not sure he did such a great thing by taking attention to the particularity of the other person out of it.

Okay, this has become a serious digression. The connection to the OP is a bit thin, at this point, so maybe it's a good idea to state it clearly.

I started down this side path on the hunch that there's something odd about the idea of "a relationship" having an expiration date, as though it's a consumer product that goes bad after a while and has to be discarded.

I meant only to suggest that focusing on the people with whom we relate rather than on some thingified notion of the relationship or of any particular set of roles or expectations might be useful because, short of death, the other person will still be there, even if expectations and boundaries and degrees of intensity and commitment change. If nothing else, there will always have been that opening between you.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's fairly explicit in The Symposium and in Phaedrus and . . .

It's not quite right to attribute pederasty - which would be the technical term for it, I suppose ('erastes' = 'lover') - to "the Greeks" in general. It was more of an Athenian thing. Aristotle, who grew up in Macedonia, had no tolerance for the practice.
.

I understand it was also practiced in Sparta. A boy would be taken into the mens' world and sort of be assigned to an older guy who would become his mentor/lover.

OK, I'm done hijacking. But I just love talking about ancient times!
 
I struggle with this a lot too

I feel you! And this question has been in my mind for awhile.

For me, personally, as a near middle age woman has been:

1. Married men wanting to cheat.
2. Youngsters who want to eventually get married.
3. Poly people already in a relationship.
4. Older men who are single (but there is a reason they are single! They tend to be quirky.)
5. Poly single people.

So, the only possible combinations for lasting relationship SEEM to bee someone who is young, single, and open to poly coming into our family. Or an older man who has been there done that and wants a lover wihtout a partner or an already married poly guy. (I actually only met one person like this).

Many of these combination seem hard to obtain. I think organically people want more of their lovers.

Yes. people break up and die. But there is a huge difference say with frieds - you expect one day they will die or break up...but the relationship is solitified in a different way that creates less anxiety. I guess I would ask (both OP and others) what the combinations might be?
 
One of the things I am struggling with myself is that even if we did nothing our relationship (me and wife, fidelitous and mono) could end; we can change and grow and need without the addition of others.

So take that as the basis, that both of you will have to grow and change as you age, and ask a different question:
1) Why do you think you will have a lifetime together without being poly?

My wife and I have both expressed a desire to spend a lifetime together. Unfortunately the way genetics work, that means only 40 years. She may be luckier and get 50 years, meaning the last 10 years will be without me.

I don't think that's driving us, but it does influence my thinking, as I have already lost both of my parents and am constantly reminded of how short life is when I see my children grow up in front of me.
 
I think the difference here is that in general, people date with the intention and expectation of finding a spouse, with whom to grow old together. Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule. Obviously, it doesn't always work out that way. But there's some expectation and goal of that.

In secondary or outside poly relationships, it's much more likely that there's an expectation of impermanence, or at least little hope for permanence. Again, obviously there are exceptions.

But I'd be curious to know how many here go into a secondary relationship thinking, hoping, expecting, or planning that it might last a lifetime, that you might grow old with this person.

I would further point out that in the typical primary or mono relationship, actions are taken that require commitment, that show that expectation of building a life together, that entwine lives: buying a house together, getting bank accounts together, having children together.

This is much less likely with a secondary relationship.
 
But I'd be curious to know how many here go into a secondary relationship thinking, hoping, expecting, or planning that it might last a lifetime, that you might grow old with this person.

I would further point out that in the typical primary or mono relationship, actions are taken that require commitment, that show that expectation of building a life together, that entwine lives: buying a house together, getting bank accounts together, having children together.

This is much less likely with a secondary relationship.

Me.. I approach all my relationships with the idea that this could be forever

Murf is my husband just as much as Butch is. We have made large purchases together. (we bought a brand new truck and just sold a classic car.) I bring money into both homes. I cook clean in both homes. I an on his accounts so I can call and inquire on issues.Murf is taking part in raising my children.

Yes it can be done, but folks have to stop putting limitations on the other partner.
 
I agree it can be done and in some cases is done. But I think it's much less likely to be expected, or sought, or to be workable.
 
But I'd be curious to know how many here go into a secondary relationship thinking, hoping, expecting, or planning that it might last a lifetime, that you might grow old with this person.

There was a thread a while back that I've been meaning to dig up in response to this one about what, essentially, are the limits of what a second partner can expect in a relationship.

I gave a long answer there ...but, in short, the only thing that is not available to Dude that MrS has is "legal marriage". Dude says he is here "for the long term" = not that that ensures that it will happen but that is everyone's intention. We all share a household/finances/responsibilities. I don't know that we had that expectation when we started out but ... we didn't set any limits on how far things could evolve. And here we are.
 
Back
Top