A question for female secondaries

I don't really have a problem with this method, and it also serves the purpose of easing the transition to poly for a girl who has no poly experience.
Hey, if it works for you, then more power to you. For the record, this guy tended to end up with women who had very little self-esteem and the relationships never lasted very long. He used to complain to me how he could never find the right kind of people. I tried to put out the cause-and-effect nature of his dating profiles, but he just didn't get it.

For all I know, he has since found what he was looking for and is blissfully happy - I (deliberately) lost touch with him a while ago.


So the big question is: Are there any women here who were introduced to poly by a guy who (1) already had a primary relationship and (2) announced that fact at the very beginning of the relationship?
I had two very functional and happy relationships that started out exactly that way - I was up-front right from the get-go. (I don't know why you are restricting it to just sexual relationships, but that may well be your paradigm.)
 
I had two very functional and happy relationships that started out exactly that way - I was up-front right from the get-go. (I don't know why you are restricting it to just sexual relationships, but that may well be your paradigm.)

That's great! May I ask you for some details about those relationships? Mainly, (1) how did you meet those women and (2) how/when did you tell them about your primary? Oh, and were you married and/or living with your primary at the time?

/In my humble opinion, sexual energy exchange between two (or more) people is what separates friendships from relationships. Therefore, the way I define things, "sexual relationship" is actually a redundant term.

-Wolf
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, the lie Ciel was referring to involved a guy who marked himself as single on an online dating profile. I think that is a somewhat forgivable sin.
I'd see it as a lie, and a big one at that.

I almost fit your criteria. I had only known there was a word for ethical non-exclusivity for a week or two when I got together with my married boyfriend. His OKCupid profile stated quite clearly that he was married, and while I probably didn't know any better at the time, if he'd hidden that only to tell me later I probably wouldn't have contacted him again.
 
Okay, my main question is, "at what point did your SO tell you about his primary poly relationship?"

I met them together and found out right then and there. It was pretty much, "So, the lady you're here with...?" "Yeah, my partner." "Cool!"

Then we emailed back and forth for a bit, and THEN I asked him if he fancied me.

We even had a dinner out all three together before anything happened in a couple setting, just to discuss.
 
That's great! May I ask you for some details about those relationships? Mainly, (1) how did you meet those women and (2) how/when did you tell them about your primary? Oh, and were you married and/or living with your primary at the time?

-Wolf

Uh, hi. I'm one of them. Should've made that obvious. And yes, they've lived together as long as I've known them.

For the record, I am skeeved as fuck by people who lie about their status. Anyone who tries to get me on their side by lying to me, even by omission, is someone I won't trust.

Also for the record, I've found it possible to feel romantically for someone without anything happening below the belt. I wouldn't be averse to a love like that. So.
 
Well, to be fair to the guy, his method is effective.. especially if the girl has no experience with polyamory. That's partially the reason I started this thread. I wanted to hear stories of single girls (with no poly history) who met poly-guys (who have primaries) and dated them, knowing they were poly from the get-go. Are there any stories like that around here? It's easy to say, "guys should do this" and "guys should do that", but I'm more curious about what is effective.

-Wolf

effective, probably yes, if sex is what your looking for. I assume that it's easier to get a girl to sleep with you when she thinks you're single.
But, if you're looking for a real relationship I don't think not being upfront about your relationship status, is a good idea. I know I would stop dating a guy if he waited telling me about the significance of his other relationships until after a couple of dates (and 'implying that you see other people' would not be good enough for me). If the full disclosure happened after we had sex, I'd be really pissed.

I'm a secondary to 2 guys (well, I was until one of them broke up with his other GF). I met both of them on an online poly dating site. Both their profiles clearly stated what kind of other relationships they were in at the time. In the first email exchange we would always share a lot of info about our lives. Of course, because I already know about poly, I would ask all the necessary questions. A girl who knows nothing about poly will maybe not ask these questions and assume that a guy who is interested in her, is single. I think its the responsibility of the guy to tell her what the deal is.

For a year, I was 'casually dating' - lots of very short relationships, sometimes 2 or 3 dates that were mostly about sex, and even with those, I wanted to know the relationship status of the guys. Most of them were single, a couple of them in open relationships. But in that case, I felt it was my responsibility to ask. (There was one case where I did not ask. I chose not to. I later found out he had lied.)
 
That's great! May I ask you for some details about those relationships? Mainly, (1) how did you meet those women and (2) how/when did you tell them about your primary? Oh, and were you married and/or living with your primary at the time?
Actually, I wasn't including lovefromgirl in my count, since she knew all about poly when I met her, even though she hadn't had a poly relationship at that time. I was referring to people who were utterly unfamiliar with the concept when I met them.

To answer your questions:
1. I met one in person, sitting next to her on a long-distance flight. I met the other online, playing a game (Diablo II), and we became friends for a long while, since she was married at the time. It was a nominally monogamous marriage with a sort of DADT thing.

2. The first lady knew about my partner and poly by the end of the flight. The other knew I was in a relationship and poly well before we met in person, and before anything romantic happened.


In my humble opinion, sexual energy exchange between two (or more) people is what separates friendships from relationships. Therefore, the way I define things, "sexual relationship" is actually a redundant term.
Thanks for your definition - that certainly clarifies your language and paradigms. I have a very different view of romantic relationships and sex.

The big issue with lies of omission is that there can be mismatched priorities between two people. Assumptions are made based on those priorities and that can lead to trouble ("Well, he should KNOW that him being in a relationship already is important and should disclose that right up-front" vs. "I don't care what other relationships he is in, since this is about him and me."). So not being honest can potentially ruin something really good - a relationship based form the start on a foundation of honesty. I think that it depends very much on how much you value honesty and integrity in a relationship as to how to approach these things.
 
It would piss me off if someone I was dating with hadn't told me they were married or in a primary-type relationship by or on the first date. I tell people in person or online that I am ethically non-monogamous. People don't have to be those things to date me but they need to know that up front. I need to know relationship status (mono, poly, single, partnered, open, closed - whatever the variation) so I can assess if I fit the bill for what this person wants and if they are what I want out of a relationship. I do not need to know all the sticky details of a relationship but I do need to know if someone is married or already partnered, or single, looking for a primary, not looking for a primary, etc.
 
Okay, my main question is, "at what point did your SO tell you about his primary poly relationship?" My primary-girlfriend (Kemie) and I have differing opinions on when it is proper to discuss this. I don't always feel the need to share intimate details of my private life on a first date with a girl. In fact, I tend to refrain from giving too many details unless I get the feeling it could turn into something more serious. My girlfriend, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach and lets guys know before any dating ever happens. I am looking for some real world examples of how other poly guys approach dating, specifically from a female perspective. So, without further ado, here are my questions:

Did you know your SO before you started dating?
At what point did he tell you about his primary relationship and was it before you both slept together?
Did you meet his primary relationship and, if so, at what point in the relationship did you meet them?

I'd like as many real examples I can get. I specifically want to hear from people who met their SO while online dating (I met most of my non-primary relationships via online dating). I've also been known to pick-up girls in bars and other social events.

If guys would like to chime in on how they approach meeting and dating secondaries, then that would also be helpful. What are your success stories?

Thank you for your time!

-Wolf (primary of Kemie)

I was a female secondary, and here's how it went down. We met on a dating site. He had himself listed as single and straight. There was absolutely no trace of his being in an open relationship on his profile. He and I talked online for two weeks, then he pushed for a coffee meeting. I said okay. Just before we went on it, though, I found out from a random look at a distant acquaintance's Facebook page that he was with her, was her boyfriend. On the phone just before our first date, I asked him about it. "Are you in a relationship with ____? Is it that you guys are in an open relationship?"

He said yes, they are, and that their plan was to tell dates on the first date. I have no way of knowing if that is true or not. It seems a reasonable plan, but you know, for all I know, he wasn't going to tell me for several dates, and only just told me because I found out beforehand.

I think what he did was okay (if he was in fact going to tell me on the first date, first thing). But NO LATER THAN THAT. Mind you, and that's only because our first date was within two weeks. I would never wait for beyond two weeks to tell someone something like that.

And technically, I think one should just have it on their profile in the first place. Don't waste people's time with your semblance of singleness when you're actually in an open relationship.

I've noticed that he's since changed his profile to reflect that he's in an open relationship. However, it is way, way down at the bottom of his page. There is tons of information about him that comes way before that last paragraph that says he's in an open relationship. I think most women aren't seeing it.

I happen to know that there was a girl talking to him recently who didn't know he was in an open relationship. She was told so by a friend of hers, and then she went back to this profile and saw it and said "Okay...no."

Not only should one mention it on one's online profile, but it should be at the top, where people will see it.

I think what it is, is that some poly/open people think they can talk people into the situation if they can just get an in-person date. And that's not a bad approach, really.

What happened in my situation is that I said "no thanks" after I found out he was in an open relationship, but then he said "I mean, we could just meet for coffee as friends..."

And he and I ended up hitting it off. It wasn't so much that he was irresistable or anything, though (however, he was very cute); I was also in a place of trying to get over a guy from before him. So I almost didn't care that I was getting into a messy situation; anything to get over the guy from before.

All this being said, I think people need to mention it right away. Most people can make the most objective decision before they even have a full date with you. If you're trying to lure them in with your personality and sex appeal, it may work (and that's to your credit), but I think it'd be more ethical for a poly person to just let the person make a decision based on whether they think poly is for them or not, completely free from your charms/sex appeal.
 
Last edited:
Well, to be fair to the guy, his method is effective.. especially if the girl has no experience with polyamory. That's partially the reason I started this thread. I wanted to hear stories of single girls (with no poly history) who met poly-guys (who have primaries) and dated them, knowing they were poly from the get-go. Are there any stories like that around here? It's easy to say, "guys should do this" and "guys should do that", but I'm more curious about what is effective.

-Wolf

This is me: single, no poly history, who met a poly-guy with a primary and dated (still dating) him.

I knew he was married long before I started dating him. I would absolutely not have started dating him without knowing he had an open marriage/poly situation.

I think he and I are in agreement that it is to his benefit that I knew him, simply as a person, for several years before I knew anything unusual about his marriage. So I see where this guy gets his idea that it's more effective to let someone get to know him first.

BUT...and it's a huge but (no bad puns intended)...my situation is entirely different from someone totally unknown to me who asks me out on a date, letting me think he's single, and after that first date...or two...or three...says, Oh, by the way...I'm married. But she doesn't care. To me it would feel deceptive and very much like a bait and switch, offering me a single guy...one I might have one sort of future with...and when I like him, saying, Ha, just kidding, what you're really getting is a married guy and a whole new lifestyle you never even considered and absolutely no chance of that future you might be thinking of when you start dating.

My personal opinion is that a person having a primary partner is basic information that belongs at the forefront...as someone else said, at the top of a profile. It may be 'more effective' to hold that information back for a little while, but that doesn't make it right.
 
Just to continue the story I told above. Even though I found out about the guy being in a polyamorous relationship just before our first date (because I discovered it, not because he told me), I still feel that he was a little bit deceptive in the way he behaved at first, in order to reel me in. (Maybe deceptive is not the word, but more like, used rhetoric in such a way that gave me a different perception than what was actually the case).

1) When I first asked him about his involvement with her, he said "Yeah, we're dating."

"We're dating" sounds a lot more casual than "she's my girlfriend" or "we're committed to this polyamory thing and as much as you might mean to me, she's the one I'm sticking with no matter what."

2) On our second date, he said, "I don't know what's going to happen in the future. She and I have an understanding that we might both meet people and branch off into traditional relationships."

This changed as soon as we had sex.

3) Also on the second date, when I asked why they didn't just break up when she was pushing for an open relationship and he didn't want it (at first), he said, "Well, we still care about each other." He was careful not to say "We still love each other."

Just those three things, really. But my point is, men are often going to downplay how committed they are to their girlfriend in order to reel you in. They know good and darn well that if a single new-to-poly woman hears, initially, how much he loves his girlfriend, how she is in fact a girlfriend and not just someone he's 'dating,' how he will never leave her no matter what, the woman isn't going to bite. So the way I see it, these men know exactly what they're doing. They're using words strategically -- not necessarily lying -- but using words in such a way that you don't know how much they're committed to their girlfriends. And this does not mean the single woman should be hoping for a guy who is uncommitted to his girlfriend. After all, if she's interested or open to poly, she shouldn't be secretly hoping for the primary couple's break-up. But if the guy uses words in such a way that he doesn't sound OVERLY committed to his primary (and he does, because he wants to reel the single woman in), the single woman is happy, she believes she has a chance of mattering to him just as much as the primary woman. The reality, unfortunately, is that that is often not the case. The primary woman matters more, and this will come out as the single/secondary woman gets involved. She just won't know it at first because the guy's been clever about how he words things and how he presents himself and the situation.

The guy I *was* involved with, I actually found out a little about him recently. I heard through the grapevine that he was courting a woman online, and that she was open to meeting him, but that as soon as she found out he was in an open relationship (through another friend, not the guy himself), she opted out. The reason she didn't know in the first place is that it doesn't say "open relationship" until the *last* paragraph of his profile (and there are a good 7 or 8 paragraphs/sections in his profile. And he apparently didn't mention it in his email exchanges.

Like I said, attempting to reel people in.

Just be honest.
 
Last edited:
See, so many good anecdotes supporting this...

If poly is about being open and honest, then how can you expect to find a good, solid poly relationship if you are not completely open and honest from the get-go?

If you manipulate folks with your "marketing strategy", then don't be surprised if you get manipulated back.
 
Wolfwood,

Just skimmed more heavily in this thread. The thing about your situation is that you're not polyamorous. You're just looking for friends with benefits, and your girlfriend is okay with it. I don't have any beef with what you do, especially if your girlfriend is okay with it. It's just super lame to be calling yourself polyamorous when you're not. AMOROUS means love, you know. Sure, you're open to love happening if it happens to happen. But I definitely get the sense that you're looking for lots of sexual play that is fairly meaningless, and having a meaningful relationship may just be an incidental occurrence. I don't mean to condemn just you, but it's true that what you're doing is a huge cliche. That is, being a guy who wants to get sex from women and have those women not mean much to you. And then calling yourself "polyamorous." That's a crock. Sorry, but it is. If you were polyamorous, you'd not have casual sexual relationships; you'd have meaningful, deep love relationships, and your girlfriend would be okay with it. And if casual sexual relationships presented themselves as an opportunity to you, you wouldn't be interested. But you're very interested. You and your girlfriend are in an open relationship; you're not polyamorous.

That being said, there are a lot of couples like you who call themselves poly but who are really just in open relationships -- that is, open to have sex with other people without those sexual liaisons meaning very much.

I just don't like people dressing it up as polyamory when it's casual sex.
 
If you were polyamorous, you'd not have casual sexual relationships; you'd have meaningful, deep love relationships, and your girlfriend would be okay with it. And if casual sexual relationships presented themselves as an opportunity to you, you wouldn't be interested.

Uh-oh! Throwing a poly rulebook at the OP?

To say that poly peeps wouldn't have, or even be interested in, casual sexual liaisons is not only judgmental, but inaccurate and misleading, too. Ever hear the phrase, "my poly is not your poly?" While what you say may be true about the OP, it may not be. Just NSA sex hook-ups are not poly -- I'm not disagreeing with you there -- but it certainly isn't a rule that if you are poly then you wouldn't even be interested in casual sexual relationships. (!) Casual relationships that seem very focused on sex can be loving; and many people find sex as the best way to start a loving relationship, with friendship and any "serious" commitments coming later. It all depends on how one defines love, relationships, and casual too, for that matter.

Good discussion on the topic: Casual Sex - Discussion
 
Last edited:
Uh-oh! Throwing a poly rulebook at the OP?

To say that poly peeps wouldn't have, or even be interested in, casual sexual liaisons is not only judgmental, but inaccurate and misleading, too. Ever hear the phrase, "my poly is not your poly?" While what you say may be true about the OP, it may not be. Just NSA sex hook-ups are not poly -- I'm not disagreeing with you there -- but it certainly isn't a rule that if you are poly then you wouldn't even be interested in casual sexual relationships. (!) Casual relationships that seem very focused on sex can be loving; and many people find sex as the best way to start a loving relationship, with friendship and any "serious" commitments coming later. It all depends on how one defines love, relationships, and casual too, for that matter.

Good discussion on the topic: Casual Sex - Discussion

I'll agree with you that casual sexual relationships can be very loving. But if it truly is "very loving" (that is, not just affection, but actual LOVE), then it is no longer casual sex, is it? Then you love the person, or have feelings of love for the person, and you are then engaging in polyamory.

I think what you're saying is that casual relationships that are very focused on sex can be very respectful and considerate. And I agree that they can be. But if they are not actually loving, deep, and on par with one's primary relationship or very close to it, then they're not really polyamory.

I mean, there are lots of friends with benefits situations in which the people participating say, "But, I mean, it's respectful. We treat each other well, and he doesn't just throw me out when we finish having sex. We actually spend some time together. We go out to lunch. And we cuddle. But it's not serious between us. I have respect for him and him for me. But we don't love each other." That's an example of casual sex that is respectful, considerate, and even with affection. But if it's not love and not ever meant to become love, I don't call that polyamory. I call it friends with benefits. Really nice and affectionate friends with benefits, don't get me wrong, but FWB all the same.

Like you said, casual sex and FWB can turn into loving relationships. If they do, that's polyamory in practice. But if they never do, and/or that's what you mostly have for years and years, you're just in an open relationship; you're not quite polyamorous.

I mean, to give an example. There's a girl whose profile I've seen on OkCupid who says this: "Let's get this out of the way right off the bat. I'm engaged to be married. The date is 10/12/12. If you're looking for "the one," that is not me. If you can't handle polyamory, I can't handle you."

She's looking for other involvements, but I would hardly call her polyamorous. And what I'm saying is that, while that girl may be very in-your-face about her stance, and a little uncouth about it, to boot, a lot of poly people are just a more polite version of the same thing. i.e. "I've already got my "the one," but I'm looking for other involvements."

I repeat- polyAMORY - that is, LOVE. When you actually love your additional partners, you're polyamorous. As long as you don't, and/or as long as you're having casual sex with the distant possibility (but rarity) of it turning into love, you're in open relationship mode.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and what I mean by people not being open to casual sexual relationships if they're truly polyamorous is this. A person who's polyamorous WANTS many loves, meaning they seek it. They're disappointed when something is just casual. They don't seek casual sex and think (as an after thought) "it'd be cool if one of them turns to love." The former is a polyamorous person for whom many loves is the intent and the main approach. The latter is a casual sex seeker who thinks "love may or may not happen; it's all good; I'll get sex, at any rate."
 
Last edited:
To say that poly peeps wouldn't have, or even be interested in, casual sexual liaisons is not only judgmental, but inaccurate and misleading, too.

I don't have a beef with people enjoying or seeking casual sex. Hell, there have been times in my life that I've sought it. On more than one occasion. I'm not some "only meaningful relationships" person. But when I sought casual sex, I called it what it was. I didn't go around saying I was "polyamorous."

It's f---ing ridiculous.

It's not the concept of casual sex I have a beef with. I'm open to it myself, while I'm also open to serious relationships. (Prefer a serious relationship, but I wouldn't say no to some hottie who I connected with, for just one night, or if we ended up FWB). But I *don't* call it polyamory. Why? 'Cause I'd be tainting the word polyamory to call it that if I were looking for casual sex, or willing to have tons and tons of it on my journey toward love.

p.s. The OP *said* he was open to occasional FWB. I didn't hear anything about loving.
 
Last edited:
@mercury,

I see casual sex as a point in a continuum that ranges from anonymous, 'bodies-only' sex to utterly sacred, totally emotionally enmeshed sex. Both of those points exist but there is so much in-between! And it's not static, people move between points. People also choose to remain in a set geography. And relationships morph - many of us have experienced where a relationship changed in unexpected ways - from casual to more attached or from platonic to sexual. I've seen this in my relationship with SW which has changed from solely a FWB to something more involved and more attached for both of us. Ariakas' earlier post that some of his meaningful relationships started from a casual hookup is another example.

This is from the thread NYCindie noted early. Ethical non-monogamy is a continuum for me, not a either/or structure. The lines between poly, swinging, open, casual to throw a few terms around are not always obvious.

I finally figured out a metaphor that I think works for showing how poly, open, swinging and so on can be different but have the possibility to shade into each other in real life.

Ethical non-monogamy is like water. Water has different forms - ice, liquid water, gas (steam). Those forms do not look at all like each other but they are all water. They change from one to the other as physical conditions change - liguid water turns to ice as it freezes, or escape into gas as it boils. Ice dissolves into liguid as it warms. Relationships can be very much like this. They might remain in the form in which they were created. Or they might change over time such as from a FWB into something more committed like a primary relationship. Or a primary relationship can move away from that into something more open, more casual.

Other people experience and define poly and ethical non-monogamy very differently. You see it in very black and white terms. It is this and not that. And that works for you. But you don't have a monopoly on poly defining. The structure I describe above works well for me. It provides a useful model for understanding my life.
 
@mercury,



This is from the thread NYCindie noted early. Ethical non-monogamy is a continuum for me, not a either/or structure. The lines between poly, swinging, open, casual to throw a few terms around are not always obvious.

I finally figured out a metaphor that I think works for showing how poly, open, swinging and so on can be different but have the possibility to shade into each other in real life.

Ethical non-monogamy is like water. Water has different forms - ice, liquid water, gas (steam). Those forms do not look at all like each other but they are all water. They change from one to the other as physical conditions change - liguid water turns to ice as it freezes, or escape into gas as it boils. Ice dissolves into liguid as it warms. Relationships can be very much like this. They might remain in the form in which they were created. Or they might change over time such as from a FWB into something more committed like a primary relationship. Or a primary relationship can move away from that into something more open, more casual.

Other people experience and define poly and ethical non-monogamy very differently. You see it in very black and white terms. It is this and not that. And that works for you. But you don't have a monopoly on poly defining. The structure I describe above works well for me. It provides a useful model for understanding my life.

I definitely get the "spectrum" and "fluidity" thing. I definitely understand that FWB and casual relationships may well evolve, over time, into something more. If you'll notice, I addressed the OP, who said he was looking for ways that he could interest single, new-to-poly secondaries into starting sexual relationships. That, to me, says he's looking for sexual relationships primarily and love/meaning only as an afterthought.

I'm not saying that he -- or other people like him -- won't fall for any of their partners who were originally casual, even if they didn't mean to. I'm saying he doesn't have the mindset or approach of a poly person. He's probably not completely un-poly. But he speaks much more with the rhetoric of a casual sex seeker.

Let me just give you an example. The poly guy I dated last year had gone on dates with about three women from OkCupid before he went out with me. He didn't feel connected with them enough to see them again or have sex with them, so he didn't. (It could be that they, too, weren't interested). When he met me, he felt attracted enough and wanted to see me again, and he soon wanted a relationship with me. So basically, he got involved only when he knew he wanted to love the person too, not just have sex with the person. That, to me, is a more poly way of being. If you don't agree, you don't agree. NyCindie asked me if I'd ever heard the phrase "My poly is not your poly." Sure I've heard it. As such, respect my poly, too. My poly is just as much not your poly as your poly is not mine, so don't make a big deal out of it. People here do that all the time. It's defensiveness. "Hey wait, don't say my casual sex isn't poly! Poly exists on a spectrum, and that spectrum includes casual sex that can turn into something more."

What I'm saying is...if 90% of the time it doesn't turn into something more, or doesn't last for more than a month, it isn't "my" poly. It may be YOUR poly, but it's not "My" poly.
 
Last edited:
I think many people on this board can't stand my definition of poly because it allows for less casualness and less preying on others. People don't want to be told they can't be casual or that they can't prey on others, so they insist their casualness and predatory ways are just as dignified as anything, that there's a "spectrum," that everybody's got their own poly. Everyone's got their own definition of murder, too, I guess? Like, if I kill someone, it's not murder because it could well be that in another life, I would really love that person I killed.

I have high standards for poly, though. True poly is, in my opinion, better than monogamy. True poly is beautiful, I think. But the way most people practice it is seedy, sordid, casual-sex-seeking-in-enlightenedness's clothing (on the part of some, not all), and irresponsible. If it's not those things, it's a bunch of catty jealousness.

It's "Look, I'm in a relationship that comes before all others. If you can't handle polyamory, I can't handle you."
 
Back
Top