We need a little guidance please

Aren't all of those scenarios you mentioned something that the quad would have to work out for themselves based on their individual needs and wants?

I guess what I am trying to ask is, what is the difference between defining boundaries and expectations between 4 people and 2 other than two more personalities to consider. I just believe that everyone needs different things and so long as those are for the most part met or worked out, what difference does quantity make?
.

Well, therein lies the rub. I assume you've dated, one on one, Choctaw. How long did it take you to find a person you were attracted to, any given relationship? Months, years? How did you work out how long to date before sex? How did you work out how often to see each other? How did you work out when to "go steady?" How did you work out when to move in together? What about marriage, kids, overtime at work (or job and income loss), illness, meeting extended families, etc etc ad infinitum.

Now, imagine that times 4. Add in being poly is new to you, your partner, maybe the hypothetical couple you meet. I mean, most poly people date individually. If you're single, you meet and date partners singly. If you're a couple, each member of the couple has their own OSO(s). Even in that scenario, it's hella more complicated than a mono couple. If you want to add in having sex/romance with more than 2 in a room, it takes very delicate negotiations. And a quad would be even more complicated and take even more diplomacy. It boggles MY mind... and I've been poly for 14 years.

And then, in a quad, what kind of sex are you looking for? Are all 4 people straight, or gay? Are some bi? Is one guy bi and the other straight? Will the women play together? Will it be more of a wife swap thing? There was one couple here who used to do a wife swap thing, and one of the wives was mad on a fourway date because her man had broken a boundary in the car, and he went silent, and she got bitchy at the pub, and then when they went to have sex, because of the tension, the other dude couldnt get it up for his OSO, and yet later, could for his wife, and so on.... ugh!
 
Last edited:
I see all of those points. I guess my best response would be that all of these things would best evolve naturally, and what happens, happens.

I just don't understand the whole concept of being so overwrought with concern that you restrict what could or could not be (and believe me I can overthink a lot). Jilly and I have mutual friends, and we have some seperate friends, but because I enjoy my time with her, I prefer our mutual friends even though I like some of my individual friends as much if not more. I compromise that for the good of the group, with the understanding and expectation that someone else is probably doing a bit of it themselves.

I guess the hard part for me is, how can you care about x, y, and z all separately and not want them all to be included. In my mind that would be much more exhausting. So I am with x, I wonder how y and z are doing. I wonder if y or z will be available on Friday night? I wonder if x is going to be ok with the fact that I want to see y or z on Friday instead of them. At least in my scenario, we can all coordinate and know we have those things in hand instead of nasty bits cropping up all the time and third party things having to be relayed and worried over.

As to the, how long until this, how long until that question, I have never been that kind of person and I don't understand the mindset. With all that has been written on this post about thinning your dating pool by creating restrictions and needs, it just seems like putting restrictive timeframes on things thins it out even more so. If he doesn't hold my hand by the third date, he isn't for me. I won't kiss anyone until the fifth date. If they do not talk about moving this to the next level by (insert date), then this isn't going to work. How is that any less restrictive than knowing what you want?

Many have used a monogamous analogy for examples, so are you telling me you didn't ever have initial expectations in monogamous relationships? I just think while having a clear expectation of what you want and being honest about it is a great way to enter a relationship, even though it may very well evolve into something different. I don't limit myself to only that dynamic, but to move to the "I want to share my whole life with you level", well jilly is a huge part of my life, why wouldn't I want to share that part as well?

Once again, none of this is meant to offend or be judgemental. I just always have these thoughts that go through my head all the time and one question can lead to any of a million others.
 
Thank you for all of the responses and excellent conversation so far. Our big issue is not an issue of friendship or dating it is rather the utter disconnect concerning what we state in our CL post and who responds. We state we are looking for like minded people where there may be in the future a chance for a more intimate relationship. What we receive are couples where one of them wants to have sex immediately and their partner is along for the ride. To us, that's not cool. We explicitly say we do not swing, we are looking for friendship and then maybe something else. And we get the obverse. We have met couples online that want what we want: Tight friendships that can be experienced more than what traditional culture finds acceptable. We know they are around us as well. We post on CL and other local forums to let others like us know they are not alone. We don't think that's a bad thing.

ps. Our apologies as posting as two instead of one. It is a shared issue and we wanted to post it as such. We will refrain from doing so in the future.
 
Well, do you define what 'like minded' means? Since it means something different to everyone. We had this discussion on another list. What does it mean to say 'like minded'? Really it's making an assumption that A) they know who you are. B) what kind of mind you have, and C) that they are the same in all the important ways to you.

Getting a second profile here is always a good idea. You may be of one mind in this issue, but you are still two different people. Even two people that agree on a course of action will have different thoughts and feelings! That's the first step. Remember you are two people. Also, if you are on a site looking for people, two profiles is probably better there too.

DH and I have been together twenty years, we marvel at how much we have 'rubbed off' on each other and our views in many things have gone from two different ideas completely to almost the same. Slowly coming and arriving at things in different directions but now in the same place. Yet, we are still TWO people. We have NEVER joined a site of any kind with just one log in. Too confusing for others who do get to know us. Even conjoined twins want to be treated like individuals! :D
 
Vix as a direct response, Jilly and I do have two different logins here, but it amazes me when we go to a site like okc how our responses are eerily similar. I enjoy everyone as an individual, but we have the same vantage point in almost every situation, and all this experience has done has driven that point home.

Reallynicepeople to respond directly to you I would say that you are fine in what you posted because you have a set ideal of what you want, be it flawed or not, that is your perspective and you are entitled to it. I wish you all the luck in the world because what you want is basically what we are looking for, a couple/fem who wants to be friends and let things progress naturally. More power to you, I hope you find exactly what you are looking for. Everyone deserves to be happy, no matter how outrageous your requirements may be to someone else.
 
Everyone deserves to be happy, no matter how outrageous your requirements may be to someone else.



And there's the bottom line. Sure, everyone has the right to happiness. If they feel that they shouldn't have to compromise on their requirements then fine. Just don't get upset if it takes you longer to find someone that feels THEY can be happy with all of YOUR requirements. You aren't looking for a puppy that will learn the rules of YOUR house. You are looking for people! If you don't want to be flexible in YOUR requirements, hemming and hawing about how hard it is to find someone is kind of ridiculous and that is what is so frustrating to so many people here.
 
Totally understandable Vix, thanks for all the knowledge, I look forward to our experiences and sharing them with everyone.
 
... so are you telling me you didn't ever have initial expectations in monogamous relationships?

I can't speak for anyone else here, but no, I never had any initial expectations for any relationship...because I never planned on being in a "relationship" in the first place. (Long version in my "Journey" blog here.)

When I found myself (unexpectedly) IN one we had to discuss and work out every single detail of what that meant to each of us and how we would proceed from there. That actually worked out great - we've been together 21 years. When I found myself (again, unexpectedly) in another relationship...we had to work out what exactly that meant and how we would proceed from there. That is working out fine so far - we've been together for 2 years.

So, from my standpoint, I am batting .1000 on the "no expectations" front.:p
Maybe I don't "want" something until I have it right in front of me?:rolleyes:

Seriously though, a lot of the strife and problems I see in the relationships around me (friends/family/etc.) - stem from the "expectations" that people bring to the table (and these are predominantly hetero mono relationships - where people think they are expecting the same stuff - they aren't).

More people = more expectations to reconcile.

I guess the hard part for me is, how can you care about x, y, and z all separately and not want them all to be included.

There is a nothing wrong with "all together" if that is what everyone wants. The number of people who WANT to be "included" in this manner...? Dude and I had a minor skirmish over this once - he assumed that two bisexual polyamorous women who were interested in him would, of course, be interested in each other...SO not the case. You don't "include" someone in a relationship the way that you "invite" them to a party. Relationships are between individuals - they don't all grow/evolve at the same rate.

JaneQ

PS. There may be an introvert/extrovert take on my answer here. In general, I don't like people. I really don't like "groups" of people. I prefer to explore people one-on-one and "in depth". (Yet I enjoy "group sex" - go figure:eek:)
 
Want doesn't seem to be the same as a basic expectation. I mean you do have a vision of how people should treat you right? Even if it is abstract?

I appreciate everyone's views, and I guess as I go along I will grow to appreciate them more and more. I am sure I will look back and go "shit yeah, the achievers". Thank you all in advance for your knowledge.
 
Want doesn't seem to be the same as a basic expectation. I mean you do have a vision of how people should treat you right? Even if it is abstract?

Erm...what?:confused:

I'm sorry. I don't think that we are having the same conversation.

"...you do have a vision of how people should treat you right?"

I DO have an idea about how people should treat other people...with respect/dignity/thoughtfulness/honesty/etc. ... but this applies equally well to random strangers and people I am in relationships with. If you don't treat me with the same level of basic humanity that I would afford to ANY RANDOM PERSON on the street -then, sure, you are not meeting my expectation of how HUMAN BEINGS should interact with each other...and we are not likely to form a "relationship" in the first place.

Being a "decent human being" is kind of a prerequisite to me wanting to even talk to someone (or be in the same room with them). It doesn't mean that I want to be their friend. And it certainly doesn't mean that I want to be in a "relationship" with them. It just means that they are not a "complete asshat".

decent human being + REALLY interesting person to talk to = friend (if mutual)
decent human being + sexual attraction = fuckbuddy (if mutual)
decent human being + REALLY interesting person to talk to + sexual attraction = "friend with benefits" (if mutual)
decent human being + REALLY interesting person to talk to + sexual attraction + indefinable-feelings-that-persist-past-NRE where their happiness seems to be a necessary to my own (which some people define as "love") = potential partner (if mutual)

So...how someone "should treat me" is a fundamental basic of being included in my life in any capacity...it is not an "expectation" for a relationship - because someone would have already passed that hurdle to even have been considered as relationship-worthy (if I was "looking for" a relationship - which I never have).

JaneQ
 
There is a nothing wrong with "all together" if that is what everyone wants. The number of people who WANT to be "included" in this manner...? Dude and I had a minor skirmish over this once - he assumed that two bisexual polyamorous women who were interested in him would, of course, be interested in each other...SO not the case. You don't "include" someone in a relationship the way that you "invite" them to a party. Relationships are between individuals - they don't all grow/evolve at the same rate.

JaneQ

PS. There may be an introvert/extrovert take on my answer here. In general, I don't like people. I really don't like "groups" of people. I prefer to explore people one-on-one and "in depth".

My partner's OSO is an introvert and still seems to desire the "all together" aspect of the wider relationship. I'm an extrovert, and have very little interest in it, outside of hanging out as friends once in a while, partly since I'm the Mono one in the bunch, and partly because I'm too damned independent to lose "me" in the "us".

My partner DOES want to include the both of us, and while I try to be accommodating, I do still need to ask for things to be just us from time to time, more than his OSO does. I get tetchy when there's too much "big us" time and not enough "little us" time.
 
My partner's OSO is an introvert and still seems to desire the "all together" aspect of the wider relationship. I'm an extrovert, and have very little interest in it, outside of hanging out as friends once in a while, partly since I'm the Mono one in the bunch, and partly because I'm too damned independent to lose "me" in the "us".

Yes, I was thinking about what I wrote yesterday as I was driving to work today. I don't actually think the introvert/extrovert thing I brought up is as relevant as it seemed when I wrote that.

I can envision why an introvert (who has different preferences than I do) would feel more comfortable creating a "chosen family" type pod where everyone is involved with everyone else. For instance, I hate having "outside" people in my home. But once someone is in my little "inner circle" of close friends/lovers - then they are "inside" people and it doesn't bother me if they are in my house (or in my bed, or with my boys :rolleyes: - which is probably how the "group sex" thing happens).

It's the meeting new people and potentially forming a bond with them in the first place that causes me stress. I don't "click" with many people but when I do I "click" hard and fast. So the idea of "having" to have that "click" happen with not one but two other people at the same time...Egads! (and then add all the other "clicks" that are supposed to happen simultaneously that I am not involved in...Yikes!)

JaneQ
 
Back
Top