Family Style vs Spoke/Hub (?)

I find I get a lot of flack for the type of poly I practice. I don't tend toward "family style" or attempting to blend my family with my or my husband's loves and I don't desire that type of relationship. I tend to be a with hub multiple individual lines/spokes coming out from me to others. Those others have their own arrangements. Why do I get so much crap for this? (I've tried to figure it out on my own but I'm interested in the reactions of others).

I will say, I am married and we do have a child. My husband has a girlfriend and I would consider him a spoke from me leading to his V arrangement with him as the hinge there. But I have other spokes. Most of my relationships are non-sexual. Maybe it's because people think I have "just friends"? I can't figure out why it gets under people's skin that I don't desire a giant family style relationship group.
 
Last edited:
You'll find that people who practice that form of poly often need that level of intrusion into their partner's other relationships to compensate for the lack of control and additional trust your form of poly requires. I mean, sure, some people like to be highly entwined with their metamours if not dating/fucking them, but the more reasonable people only require that from people who share that desire. They are perfectly fine with their partner having totally separate relationships where no time is spent as a group with them monitoring their partner and metamour. These people won't put emotional and physical obstacles in the way stopping them having independent relationships away from the home. You'll find that the overbearing ones will try and prevent the partner and metamour having anytime away from their vigilant eyes.

These people are so reliant on this sort of close supervision, they can't imagine how anyone could navigate a polyamorous relationship without being able to step into your partner's relationship anytime you feel they've done something to offend you, or impede on your relationship. They can't imagine just beig able to trust that your partner will make the most ethical decision for all involved. They have to oversee it because of their fear (founded or unfounded) that their partner will forget them in the process.

The way to decide who would simply prefer an entwined group model and who needs It because of issues, basically, is to see who sets rules around their interaction with metamours and who simply states.preferences when asked. This rule thing works the other way round too: someone who categorically refuses to ever meet a metamour probably isn't very comfortable with polyamory
 
I pretty much want the three C's of poly (communication, communication, communication - heh) but only with my partners/loves. I don't mind and often like meeting metamours but it's not at all a requirement for me and I don't enjoy being put into a "veto power" position. I feel that anyone I would be with is competent enough to make their own decision about who is best for them to be with. The only serious rules I attempt to impart are where my family unit (me, my husband, and our son) is concerned and to make sure that our family gets enough time together and our marriage stays stable.
 
From whom are you getting all this crap? On this forum at least, the majority of people practice more of what you describe as spoke/hub poly. So I'm inferring that this judgement is coming from people in your local poly so-called community?

It's a common human trait to view different customs as strange or wrong. It reinforces our belief that what we're doing is acceptable. If what I'm doing is right, and what you're doing is different, then the only way I can convince myself that what I am doing really is right is to believe that what you're doing is wrong. It's tribal thinking, and soft-wired into our brains through millenia of tribal social evolution.

Notice how even while coming to your defence, London did exactly the same thing to those people as they do to you. Rather than accept that they prefer a different model but that's ok, she demonized them and accused them of having character flaws and being insecure.

You don't convince people to be tolerant your beliefs by displaying intolerance towards their own beliefs.
 
No, I said people who make rules about how and where their partner's interact with other people have control issues. I said people who prohibit the meeting of metamours aren't comfortable with polyamory. A great, great many people who practice group poly where everyone at least hangs out say that this "spoke" poly isn't real polyamory. I've been in this debate a good few times. And yes, initially it appeared that everyone who practiced this was uber controlling, now I realise that its those who make it a rule to operate that way who are the red flags. Especially those who set those expectations for their partner's relationships as well as their own. When you ask these people why they need that rule/level of control, you'll often find that either one person has severe insecurity/trust issues which are unfounded, or there has been a history of betrayal between the dyad, thus the need to control.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would like to know where you are getting the flak also because I see very few people doing the family style of Polyamory, at least online.
Personally the family thing is more my ideal, but I know it is not for everyone and I don't think you should have to meet or socialise with your metamours if you don't want to, as long as everyone is happy with the situation, what's their problem?
 
From what I see, it basically boils down to their conclusion that anyone who doesn't want that level of contact with their metamours are not okay with being poly. It is unethical to have a relationship unless you are totally sure any metamours are completely okay and you cannot trust people to be honest so you have to see yourself. The idea of 'if you love me, you have to love my partner" involved but not in the sense that people have to be sexually involved or in a romantic relationship, but feel great affection for metamours or it isn't polyamory, more an open relationship. Some will go onto make value judgements about poly vs open. Others will just maintain that it isn't polyamory, or "good" poly without that level of entanglement.
 
I find I get a lot of flack for the type of poly I practice.

I can't figure out why it gets under people's skin that I don't desire a giant family style relationship group.

From WHO? And how do you know it bugs them?

Could not ask "why" -- could just accept that it DOES get under their skin and move on to assess if this affects you or not and how.

If it doesn't really affect you? And it's mostly their bag? Could leave them to own their disappointment then. "I'm sorry you are disappointed this is not your prefered model. I am not willing to participate in "family" style polyship model. I am willing to participate in "spoke/hub" style. " Then let it go. They can determine their own willingness to continue to participate or not. So could you.

If this IS affecting you because of who it is or how they express this to you -- I can't give any suggestions. There's not enough data. Could you be willing to clarify?

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
The vast majority of people I personally know practice the family or what I call family type poly - the type where all of the paramours and metamours are expected to know one another and at least nominally get along. I dont mean family as in everyone has kids/lives together etc. I tend to be the exception to that rule in most of the relationships I am in as well.

Ive definitely asked everyone and gotten their answers which are very much along the lines of "because this is better" "why dont you do this" and they get very disheartened when I tell them why I dont. Ive seen too many explode and also because I am simply not interested in their paramours, metamours or families as more than other fairly nice people, but I have a lot going on. I didnt ask here because I cant talk to them. I asked here to hopefully get a larger sample. :)

My current metamour and her actual family unit practice the family poly thing and while I can entirely accept what they do as something I just dont do, I get tired of being odd person out even in poly conversation. I will say though this isnt the issue per se, I really am attempting to understand why people have an issue with it so I can more gracefully (?) And intelligently tell them to back off. Aside from the "back off. This is my way that is your way." Bcause that has led to alienation which isnt comfy for anyone.
 
I find I get a lot of flack for the type of poly I practice. I don't tend toward "family style" or attempting to blend my family with my or my husband's loves and I don't desire that type of relationship. I tend to be a with hub multiple individual lines/spokes coming out from me to others. Those others have their own arrangements. Why do I get so much crap for this? (I've tried to figure it out on my own but I'm interested in the reactions of others).

I will say, I am married and we do have a child. My husband has a girlfriend and I would consider him a spoke from me leading to his V arrangement with him as the hinge there. But I have other spokes. Most of my relationships are non-sexual. Maybe it's because people think I have "just friends"? I can't figure out why it gets under people's skin that I don't desire a giant family style relationship group.

Who are these people demanding you have the one big happy family style of poly? As others have said, reading here at least, the majority of people have V type arrangements, where the metamours may meet, may be cordial, may become friends, may become lovers, maybe even become co-parents.... or OTOH, they may never meet at all (due to distance, preference, time/schedule restraints, shyness, or other reasons).

Now this board is skewed towards newbies who come here with their new-to-poly issues. Maybe more seasoned polys tend to blend lives more fully with their longterm lovers, just because paths eventually, inevitably cross between metamours. But surely it's not some kind of requirement. That just seems weird. Kind of like, if you have a brother and a sister and you all live in separate states, and only get together one on one except in rare situations when all three are available. Does that mean you have unhealthy sibling relations? I think not.
 
I'm involved in both a family style AND a spoke/hob set-up. The family style is developing locally between AM, WI, and me, and we're slowly merging family times (though it's taking a lot of the 3 C's... love that line). The spoke/hub is that I'm part of what we've called an N, but long distance, so I rarely see EL (and her husband and my wife don't really know each other).

What I notice is that I hear both of the critiques, and neither feel like they're pointed at me. There are those who presume to know what the other "style" of relationship means/does/is/entails, but I don't see myself in those descriptions.

If someone is giving you flak, I think it's best to know that you're doing a different style of things, and those styles come from very different structures and desires for different structures. You don't have to take their presumptions as your own. If it doesn't sound like who you are - you can be polite and move on, right?
 
Thats how I feel! Like, really?? That is so weird to me. I mean to each their own but I just keep bumping into them. Thank you.
 
I think its sad you get flack. I get flack on here and in real life because we are a very integrated family dynamic.

But I have close personal friends who are like you describe as well and I've never understood why anyone gives a damn unless it's THEIR relationship that they feel isn't going the way they want it.

I wish both sides of the coin would realize-that both ways can work in the right situation (a situation where the people in it like it).
 
I really am attempting to understand why people have an issue with it so I can more gracefully (?) And intelligently tell them to back off. Aside from the "back off. This is my way that is your way." Bcause that has led to alienation which isnt comfy for anyone.

If this is the need? Without an example conversation, I can't give you feedback on your communication style. Could you be willing to give an example conversation that happened between you and X where you felt flakked on?

You do seem to recognize that a defensive "back off" sort of tone is not serving you well because it alienates people.

Ive definitely asked everyone and gotten their answers which are very much along the lines of "because this is better" "why dont you do this" and they get very disheartened when I tell them why I dont.

If you are the one initiating the conversation asking people things, that doesn't seem like them seeking you out to be giving you flak.

If they are disheartened with your reasons why you prefer a different model -- well, they are disheartened then. That's their problem. But you could examine how you state that preference. You aren't responsible for how they feel, but you could examine if your communication was taken wrong accidentally or created misunderstandings. You ARE responsible for your behavior and your choice of vocab.

  • "I like spoke hub because family model is for stupidheads" -- well, that won't be received well. Gets people defensive and kinda GRR esp when they like the model they have. (Not saying you say that, just an example.)
  • "Thanks for sharing your experiences with me." (That's pretty neutral)
  • "Thanks for sharing. I'm glad that works out well for you. In my experience, I found I prefer spoke style for myself." (Nobody can deny you your experience or your preferences. You are you. So that's also pretty low key response.)

Could thinking up responses like that ahead of time help you have a more graceful conversation the next time you find yourself "on the spot?"

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
The idea of a poly tribe makes me shudder. I prefer to keep my relationships separate and have a nice, respectful acknowledgement of my metamours, and nothing more. I'm an introvert and highly value my privacy and personal space, so no cohabiting or group dates or family-style meetings for me!

That being said, I wouldn't give anybody flak for doing things in a way completely different from how I do them. I might think to myself, "That's nuts," when I see a big poly tribe or want to say, "I told you so," when it implodes, but I am not about to openly criticize them for it.

I really do see a tendency in society nowadays for people to be very lacking in discretion or diplomacy. For example, if people will ask me what neighborhood I live in, I often hear comments like, "Ugh, I hate that part of town." It stymies me every time - I would never blurt out to someone that I hate where they live, unless it was an issue where I was worried about their safety. Not that I give a fuck whether they like my neighborhood or not, but it's just so impolite.

The way I see it, if someone is going to be so ballsy and rude as to criticize how you choose to live your poly life, they need to be put in their place. I would tell them, "Well, I don't like how you do poly but I wouldn't put you down for it. Why do you think you can do that to me? The way I live makes me happy and I would appreciate it if you would direct your judgment elsewhere."

Sheesh, some people.
 
Last edited:
J ia pretty involved in our family because she's become one of my best friends. For instance, if n are going out, I always invite her. Halloween we went.to lunch then later she came over and we all took our kids trick.or.treating then later she ans I went to my frienda bar then to.dinner while n stayed in with the kids.

Otherwise I personally prefer my partners and his other partners not be involved in our life. I know j wants nothing to so with n's other partners and doeant.even want to know.who hea seeing or when.
 
You'll find that people who practice that form of poly often need that level of intrusion into their partner's other relationships to compensate for the lack of control and additional trust your form of poly requires.

No, I said people who make rules about how and where their partner's interact with other people have control issues.

Nope, you specifically said it about "people who practice that form of poly." The OP referred to "family type" poly, and you did not specify the sub-group of them who make rules governing their partners' behaviour. Indeed, you routinely make that generalization about the entire group of family-oriented polyfolk. You have spoken publicly with enough people from that group to dispel the "family poly preference = control issues" myth that you seem to harbor, and yet you apparently refuse to acknowledge it as a valid form of polyamory.

Not like there aren't hub-style poly folk who make just as many control-based rules. Some people impose limits on how close their partners are allowed to become with other partners, or how often they're allowed to see them. I find that happens much less frequently with family-type poly, because everyone is comfortable hanging out together and sharing time.

Control issues are about individual personalities. There is no correlation between style of polyamory, or for that matter poly vs mono, and control issues. People from all walks of life are just as likely to have control issues, be insecure, and put limitations on the behaviours of other people in their life. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pleasure some derive from being friends with their partners' partners.

I have never once seen you acknowledge that family-type polyamory is just as valid as hub-type polyamory, or even that there exist family-type polyamorists who are not insecure control freaks. I implore you to prove me wrong. Just once, admit that forms of poly other than your own are equally valid. I dare you.
 
Last edited:
You'll find that people who practice that form of poly often need that level of intrusion into their partner's other relationships to compensate for the lack of control and additional trust your form of poly requires. I mean, sure, some people like to be highly entwined with their metamours if not dating/fucking them, but the more reasonable people only require that from people who share that desire. They are perfectly fine with their partner having totally separate relationships where no time is spent as a group with them monitoring their partner and metamour. These people won't put emotional and physical obstaclesin the way stopping them having independent relationships away from the home. You'll find that the overbearing ones will try and prevent the partner and metamour having anytime away from their vigilant eyes.

These people are so reliant on this sort of close supervision, they can't imagine how anyone could navigate a polyamorous relationship without being able to step into your partner's relationship anytime you feel they've done something to offend you, or impede on your relationship. They can't imagine just beig able to trust that your partner will make the most ethical decision for all involved. They have to oversee it because of their fear (founded or unfounded) that their partner will forget them in the process.

The way to decide who would simply prefer an entwined group model and who needs It because of issues, basically, is to see who sets rules around their interaction with metamours and who simply states.preferences when asked. This rule thing works the other way round too: someone who categorically refuses to ever meet a metamour probably isn't very comfortable with polyamory

Apology accepted.
 
I have never once seen you acknowledge that family-type polyamory is just as valid as hub-type polyamory, or even that there exist family-type polyamorists who are not insecure control freaks. I implore you to prove me wrong. Just once, admit that forms of poly other than your own are equally valid. I dare you.

These people have a healthy balance. I do think people who demand that metamours spend time with them and make petty, unreasonable and often emotionally manipulative "rules" around how and when their partner interacts with other people are insecure and controlling. Someone who is highly reluctant to meet me due to their issues with polyamory has less bearing on my life than someone who is.pressuring our partner to interact with me in a way I am not comfortable with. When I ask people who favour this highly entwined model, they usually refer to the fact this style allows them to screen the metamour and ascertain their intentions. That makes me highly uncomfortable because I immediately wonder why they don't trust their partner to dump me straight away should I show any cowgirl tendencies. So yes, I think people who make explicit rules about everyone being a big family type thing are highly likely to have control and/or trust issues within their dyad that I am not willing to contend with. If I was able to develop a relationship with someone who has a preference for that model, or their partner(s) had a preference for that model, i would definitely compromise once I knew I wanted the guy in my life in some capacity. I just will not cater to demands and trust issues.
 
Last edited:
Apology accepted.

Please don't presume to have won an argument merely by standing there and screaming previous comments only louder. It not only fails to make a point, but it implies that I'm illiterate as well as too stupid to notice.

The OP was "why do family style polys come down on me for my hub style poly?"

Your response was a rant against overbearing people with control issues. The OP said nothing about overbearing people or control issues -- that was your own personal trigger from the phrase "family style poly."

Not only did it once again highlight your trigger and vendetta against family style polys, but it completely failed to actually answer the question. I think we can all agree that overbearing people with control issues have problems. That does not in any way explain why some people judge others for their way of life.
 
Back
Top