Is there a hard-wired mono who happily transitioned to poly here, please?

A lone wolf in need of a pack?
:eek: You are the most perceptive bunny in the universe of bunnies. Maybe it's because you've recognised a peer worshiping the moon :)

I've identified myself to others as a lone wolf many times and an equal number of times as a neo-nomad, because unlike traditional nomads who move about with their tribe/group/families, I move around on my own (like a lot of people nowadays - hence neo-nomad). But I had never worded the two together in a single beautiful analogy like you did and if you allow me, I would like to steal your perfect analogy to explain my situation to others from now on.
 
I believe it would be fair to say that there was some fear that the specialness of our relationship would be lost in a poly marriage. (...)I guess it would also be fair to say that I strongly associated sexual exclusivity with the specialness of our relationship as well
Thank you so much, Al, for taking so much time to reply very thoroughly. This is a huge help for me.
The first sentence I quote from you is totally where my fear lies at the minute. I need to see where it comes from (I think I know and I've given some clues in my previous replies) and I need to find solutions to appease the fear which I'm working hard at as we speak and I think it's promising.
The second sentence you mention reminds me of something Esther Perel mentions in her book "Mating in captivity", because I'm not worried about my partner having sexual connections but about my partner having strong emotional connections. By default, I picture these emotional connections mostly through talks and opening one's private intellectual space. The reason I bring it up is because your description and my description would exactly fit under the stereotype that the author describes, in that a lot of women are very sensitive and have mastered language as a bonding mechanism whereas men often create intimacy through the body itself. (I'm sure I'm betraying her explanation - read the book and you'll have the full picture).
I'm never very happy to read gendered generalities but in the occasion, she explains the history of it in a convincing way and of course she doesn't sum it up as brutally as I just did, so it doesn't look quite as stereotypical. But even if you discard the gender schism, and only consider individual cases, it still opened my eyes on the fact that intimacy, deep bonds, emotional connections could come from different interactions for different people. So if my partner is like the man the author talks about, it's sex that should worry me :D, not long chats by the moonlight. (I know. The aim is not to be worried by anything! :) )
 
  • Are you monoamorous (desire or capability to share love with 1 sweetie) and monogamous (want to relate in a 1:1 model, no other people)?

  • Are you monoamorous (desire or capability to share love with 1 sweetie) and relationship shape flexible? Could do mono like 1:1, poly like an end point in a V, casual sex, etc?

  • Are you polyamorous (desire or capability to share love with more than 1 sweetie) and relationship shape flexible? Could do poly or do mono like 1:1 so long as you can express your poly thoughts and feelings? Open enough for you but Closed enough for the partner since there is no other people?

  • Are you polyamorous (desire or capability to share love with more than 1 sweetie) and polygamous? You want to be in a poly thing be it an MMF, FMF, a V, a triad, a quad, or some other poly network?
Ok, let me gather my bits of brain because my head's just exploded. :D :p

So I... don't really know what all this is to the point that I can go A Vs B so masterfully as you do! I said "monoamorous" seemed to resonate better with me because I'd prefer to have a strong love bond (being "amorous") with only one person. But I wouldn't have much issues having sexual and friendly light-hearted interactions with more than one person. Ive always been uneasy with the label monogamous (and at best described myself as a serial mono, because I was) because a life-long single sexual partner seems impossible and not even desirable at all. A life-long love was possible and in this case desirable, but at the time I couldn't think of other ways than a love and sex partner for a finite time and then change or a love partner which would cease to be a sex partner (sex would cease to be altogether) and this last one was a terrible prospect.
So... I dunno... What does that make me? Not monoamorous?

Are you saying you neglect your friends and other relationships when in a mono thing? So when the mono thing folds, you have no support system to help you heal from the grief of the relationship ending?
Neglect? No! Not at all! I wish I had very strong friendships. I wish some people, even just one, knew me for a long time - someone I didn't need to explain who I am to, someone who has followed my evolution and whose evolution I followed as well. Unfortunately, explaining who I am over and over again is the never-ending story of my life because everyone is always new to me or has a shallow knowledge of me (and me of them) because as I said here and there, I've been a neo-nomad for over 20 years.
However, yes: when the relationship ends, I have no or little support system, too shallow of a support system to really lean on it if needed. Which has been a problem at times, but I survived. :) It would be nice to have those friends I mention though.

Here's another perspective. The fear of being replaced? What's the fear really?
Being replaced, yes... Rejection, really. When you're a nomad and you keep saying goodbye to people, it's not easy if they also occasionally say goodbye to you when you're not even leaving the area.
And loneliness.
Not "oh I'm so bored on my own, I need people to fill the minutes and hours of my evening" kind of loneliness. Dog, no. I'm an introvert so time alone is my comfort zone and how I recharge and do myriad of stuff I love. No, I mean existential loneliness. More like "who knows me...?". More like "who do I say half a sentence to and we burst out laughing because they know I know they know". More like "Dude, I know it's 3am and I'm waking you up, but...". Maybe even more like "if I die tomorrow, who will know about it and when...?"
So yeah, the idea of a relationship that is lasting and stable is a little bit of a nice prospect for me. And as daunting and scary as it is because it's an unknown area, open-relationships seem to have more chances for success to achieve this goal than monogamy in my opinion. So I'm stepping in the unknown area and I'm doing what needs doing to adapt to it. It's not like I don't know how to adapt to unknown places, right? :)

Rather than spend a lot of energy making things so a break up can never happen, consider how to better fuel your "coping-ness" if it DOES happen. (...)There's nothing to fear because I already did the things I needed to do to be prepared. I might not LOVE dealing with a hurricane or its aftermath, but I'm prepared. YKWIM?
Totally. 100% agree. I'm.doing this too. But ya know, the child inside is a sensitive, stubborn creature and doesn't change or evolve with a finger snap. This kind of work is on the long run.

Thank you so much for helping GalaGirl and spending so much time trying to understand the situation better. I really appreciate it. And I will read these links you give. EDIT: Ah, these are from the book "Opening up" actually. Great! I've just finished another book and was going to start this one tonight as it's been waiting for a few days now (but then I saw all the messages, so now, it's time for bed :D ).
 
Last edited:
I said "monoamorous" seemed to resonate better with me because I'd prefer to have a strong love bond (being "amorous") with only one person.

So you are monoamorous. You prefer to share love with 1 sweetie. That part seems clear.

But I wouldn't have much issues having sexual and friendly light-hearted interactions with more than one person. Ive always been uneasy with the label monogamous (and at best described myself as a serial mono, because I was) because a life-long single sexual partner seems impossible and not even desirable at all.

As for how you like to relate... You prefer to relate monogamously with 1 person at a time. Even if serially.

Or you like having casual relationships, like casual sex, FWB, but not more than that.

Are those the two things you are up for? Or some kind of combo?

Is it that you prefer to have a main relationship, and casual sex relationships on the side? Maybe you want something like FWB? Or more like swinging? And you don't want polyamory for you or for your partner? No serious other partners?

Spend some time figuring out what it is you are and are not up for so you are in the right general ball park. You might not know if you are up for some things or not until you try them. But if you can narrow it down a bit that will hopefully go a bit easier and be more manageable so you aren't spending energy on things that just just NOT your thing. YKWIM?

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Ok, let me gather my bits of brain because my head's just exploded. :D :p

I said "monoamorous" seemed to resonate better with me because I'd prefer to have a strong love bond (being "amorous") with only one person. But I wouldn't have much issues having sexual and friendly light-hearted interactions with more than one person.

That's a perfectly valid relationship model. Some of the purists might say it's not poly (I noticed GalaGirl mentioned swinging, which is more of a couple's team sport) but that is how my wife conducted herself. Granted, one of the guys she was dating was a long time friend, but it wasn't a full blown romantic relationship. Meanwhile, I tend to more romantic relationships, with room for the more casual as well. Also at odds with how a lot of people view polyamory, I did view my wife as a soul mate. It just wasn't in the conventional sense of the phrase.

So I see no reason that couldn't be a good starting off point for you.
 
Yes, I don't think what I'm describing is polyamoury, which is why I've used the terms non-monogamy or open relationships.
As for how you like to relate... You prefer to relate monogamously with 1 person at a time. Even if serially.

Or you like having casual relationships, like casual sex, FWB, but not more than that.

Are those the two things you are up for? Or some kind of combo?

Is it that you prefer to have a main relationship, and casual sex relationships on the side? Maybe you want something like FWB? Or more like swinging? And you don't want polyamory for you or for your partner? No serious other partners?
Some of these scenarios are possible GalaGirl, while a deep love connection/ "soul mate" scenario is going on with my current partner: casual sex, FwB, these two at the same time. What would not happen in my ideal scenario at the same time as I have a soul mate connection with my current partner is serial monogamy because this would mean I don't have a sexual connection with him at all any more, to be replaced by an exclusive sexual connection with someone else. And I don't think, even if I was open to it, that monogamy would be the right term for it.
And if I misunderstood and you meant serial monogamy as a whole relationship model, then that's how I've lived my life so far and it's the only thing I could think of that was ethical, realistic and could cater for my inner-child baggage but it's really not ideal because I keep losing partners, some of which, over stupid stuff like I would like more sexual experience (and also no nesting escalation, which that ex-partner really wanted and I don't).
So far, since we haven't established what my current partner wants on his side yet, I can't talk for him and I can't put a label on our relationship model as a whole like
swinging, which is more of a couple's team sport
but if it was my decision only, I'd rather he goes for the same model as me. But that's really only to cater for my inner-child baggage and I'd like to work at it and be in a place where I don't need to require emotional exclusivity from my partner and they can be free to act how they see fit.
 
....But that's really only to cater for my inner-child baggage and I'd like to work at it and be in a place where I don't need to require emotional exclusivity from my partner and they can be free to act how they see fit.

This is certainly valid and it works for many people here, but keep in mind that part of not catering to your inner child (reacting out of fear) is also honoring what your inner child has to say. The child is in us for a reason and it's not just to hold us back or keep us enslaved to our fears. Our inner child carries the flame of our heart's desire and is our emotional GPS. Emotions are not to be overcome, they are to be recognized and respected. People run into a lot of trouble when they work on their inner child issues by ignoring altogether what that part of themselves has to say.

Mother Nature keeps creating monoamorous desires in most people for good reason. It's not just a social construct that's adhered to out of ignorance or social pressure. Lots of intelligent, open minded people explore poly, only to come to the decision that poly is just not for them. There's nothing to overcome. Poly is not a more evolved or more socially aware relationship model, it's one of a few options. As you explore, remember that preferring monoamory for yourself and for your partner is a perfectly valid choice, one that your inner child might very well have wisdom about. The important thing is not to achieve any relationship ideal, but to discover, through experience and reflection, what kinds of intimacy work for you. Polyamory is not more generous or socially evolved than monoamory - it's just a preference.
 
Back
Top