Triad Equality

This is very much how I feel. I don't think that my ring is my ENTIRE MARRIAGE at all. I am, however, HUGE on symbolism. In fact, the idea of getting 3 rings for HMA, Anne, and I to wear was MY idea in the first place! It was a SYMBOL of our commitment to one another. It doesn't even have to be a ring. It could be a necklace, a tattoo, anything.

My ring is a symbol of the promise made to marry me, and when I have a wedding ring, it's a symbol of the vows I took. That symbolism is VERY important to me.

Me too. 100%

This is very much how Anne thinks. I don't. I can get my head around that way of thinking, but I don't agree with it at all. Especially the way of thinking that polyamory and monogamy are so different. In my mind, they aren't. Our triad is made of 6 separate but complementary monogamous relationships, as far as I'm concerned. Each of us as a person having a "monogamous" relationship with the other. I explained it to HMA last night, and it's a REALLY complicated way of thinking - but it's just how I'm wired. lol It's tough to get out in a concise manner. I'm not even gonna try any further than I have. :) Suffice it to say that polyamory didn't "reconfigure" the way I view love or relationships. At all. I definitely appreciate the input, and because it SO clearly defines how Anne seems to think, it gives me something to talk about with her. Maybe we'll understand one another better!

Again this. Perhaps I am Monogamously wired. And I was just lucky to love two people. Cause I dont seem to see things the way some others do... But Maybe its just the label I don't fit.
 
To me it sounds like you think it IS a case of All or none when it comes to "marriage". To me it sounds like that you think that Violet is wrong/inconsiderate for wanting that symbol of commitment.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from, especially since I said specifically that there aren't any right or wrong answers in this but things to consider. I never laid out an all or nothing case either. I haven't spoken at all about commitment levels or symbols in this thread. I've merely brought up the legal disadvantage that can exist in triads. I'm just laying out some realities, not judgments. I get the sense that you have a problem with my posts in general, but that doesn't need to take up this thread.
 
Honestly ..Its because all your considering in that post are the legal remifications. Which as I pointed out can be very easily solved.

When it comes to commitment and the symbol of said commitment, Legalities are irrelevent. Think of it from Vi's point of vew. HMA asked her to be his wife. Commitment number one. When they get married that commitment is replaced by the commitment they make in those vows. INSPITE of the LEGAL commitment they make an emotional commitment to each other. When you chose to have children with someone its a emotional and physical commitment for life. The big picture.
 
Honestly ..Its because all your considering in that post are the legal remifications. Which as I pointed out can be very easily solved.

Actually, no. At first I talked about the possibility of letting go of the idea of equal. Then the marriage was brought up again, at which point I pointed out another perspective around that. And those legalities aren't easily solved for everybody.

it comes to commitment and the symbol of said commitment, Legalities are irrelevent. Think of it from Vi's point of vew. HMA asked her to be his wife. Commitment number one. When they get married that commitment is replaced by the commitment they make in those vows. INSPITE of the LEGAL commitment they make an emotional commitment to each other. When you chose to have children with someone its a emotional and physical commitment for life. The big picture.


Again, I'm not downplaying any piece of the emotional commitment by talking about the legal issues. I'm also not dismissing Violet's point of view in this. Bringing up another side to it does not equal invalidating her side. That's part of looking at the big picture. And yes, legal commitment and emotional commitment are two different things, I've never disputed that. But try telling a same sex couple struggling in a system that doesn't allow them the privileges of marriage that the legalities are irrelevant. Looking at the big picture does not mean dismissing the little things that can be issues.
 
Actually, no. At first I talked about the possibility of letting go of the idea of equal. Then the marriage was brought up again, at which point I pointed out another perspective around that. And those legalities aren't easily solved for everybody.

Yes and spoke about being Fair. Unfortunately, As you pointed out there is no fairness in the legal constitution that is marriage. Sucks but thats how it is. To me its a personal thing I guess. One commitment and One commitment. To Different Commitments BOTH very important. Not easy but when you make a commitment you do what you need to make it work. Big Picture. Life isn't always fair and equal. Nothing is. You do what works for you and those you love.

The SYMBOL of a wedding ring is important to some. Not all. I think its a personal thing. And I think that voicing those feelings to everyone involved and disscussing why its important to you is the best way to achieve balance.
 
The SYMBOL of a wedding ring is important to some. Not all. I think its a personal thing. And I think that voicing those feelings to everyone involved and disscussing why its important to you is the best way to achieve balance.

*sigh* I honestly don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. And I shouldn't have spent this much of the thread clarifying what I'm saying and defending against reactions to things I'm *not* saying.

I'm done with this part of the conversation.
 
You and Me both.
 
I give you this:

I don't wear a ring. Steve and I don't even HAVE rings.

It freaks some people out.

Our marriage is a piece of paper. It's a legal thing, a social contract that says we are each other's closest relative by choice.

Our relationship is neither a piece of jewelry nor a piece of paper.

It boggles my mind the way a lot of women think that their ring IS their marriage, and when they lose their ring, it's like the end of the world as we know it.

I think there is far too much emphasis placed on rings and weddings, very much like sex can focus too much on orgasms.

That's enough from me for now.

I hope you folks can work it out.

On that note-if I lost the rings-that wouldn't send me into a tailspin.

I just can't stand being told what to do about something as trivial as what I choose to wear.. or not wear.

Interestingly enough as I don't wear my rings at home and I don't wear them to work out-it tends to be only once every week or two for a few hours (out for dinner or out on a date or something) that I wear mine. But I keep them in a special place.

Maca on the other hand-he's VERY anal about his ring. It's on his hand ALL the time and it means a LOT to him. ;)
 
Maca on the other hand-he's VERY anal about his ring. It's on his hand ALL the time and it means a LOT to him. ;)

Me too. Even losing over a hundred pounds..Its miles too big. I wear a different ring to keep it from slipping off.
 
Both Sea and I are sitting here reading your post. Our hearts are breaking for you. Marriage is a huge committment. No... wearing a ring on your left hand doesn't automatically symbolize that committment, but damn if it isn't a reason you wear it. None of the three of us wear wedding bands. Sea and Tommy are married, but neither wear a ring. This summer we decided to have three rings, and our own vows. Those rings are worn on our right hands. Our claddagh's symbolize, love, loyality and friendship. This fall we had a really bad falling out, Tommy took off his ring. For him this ring we all share, was so much more then just friendship, love and loyalty.

Sweetie speaking here: If Sea and Tommy were to wear wedding rings, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If Tommy told Sea she had to take her ring off, because we are now a three... he wouldn't go to sleep and wake up. He wouldn't have to worry about Sea. He would have to worry about me. A wedding ring on your left hand is connected to your heart. It is a circle with no end. It symbolizes marriage. It's supposed to. The two of them wearing a ring on their left hand, takes nothing away from the rings we wear on the right. That's why we are a three. All three together. Loving each other. As a wedding ring shows love between a husband and wife, the claddagh we wear on the right, shows the love we share for each other.

Sea speaking here: Tommy and I haven't worn our wedding rings for many years. That says nothing for our love for each other. We know what our love for each other is, and a ring doesn't say it all. We have stopped wearing our rings for totally different reasons. (Weight lifting crushes them...etc) Our love is no less then it ever was. Our claddagh rings, on the other hand, don't mean any more or less to us, they have just taken us to a new chapter in our lives. Our love for one another (Tommy and I) has not diminished in any way. The rings between the three of us symbolizes the here and now, for me, the marriage vows have been superceded ( by choice ) We are three, plain and simple, we have three rings, three hearts, and now...three times the love!

Violet, you deserve to have your wedding ring, HMA is marrying you! If you want a ring that symbolizes your triad, then by all means you should have one, but that shouldn't take away from that ring that you wear on your left hand that is connected to your heart. A ring on the right hand, also connects to your heart, just by a different route!

Wearing it on your right takes away from no-one, it just shows the committment to all three.
 
I'm kind of wondering...what is this more about for you, Violet? Is this more about the ring or is this about the strain of trying to keep an "equal" dynamic where there may not be one?
 
IMO Violet has every right to be pissed about the idea of taking her ring off. By joining HMA in a marriage she is in fact committing more to the relationship. Anne will not be tied to him in any other way than emotional at least initialy. They may be loved equally but the level of "real life", day to day integration, and legally functioning commitment is greater for Violet.

There is an aspect of adulthood that seems to be missing when discussing equality and levels of commitment in a lot of these threads.
Adults build unions that are not only based on loving emotion. They build them on paying taxes, maintaining households, creating retirement plans, and mowing the fucking lawn. Real life shit. It's great to have relationships based on dating, intimacy, sex and common interests…but it is the ones that hold up to the day to day stuff that embody commitment, dedication and sustainability.

That doesn't make other relationships not worth pursuing or any less rewarding in some ways. But it makes them different.

Value in anything is generally a reflection of what is put into the equation. Why should this be any different when dealing with romantic relationships?

If it is a visible disparity that HMA is concerned about, get Anne a ring too. Don't water down the symbols of Violet's marriage; elevate the symbols of Anne's commitment to HMA and her.
 
imo violet has every right to be pissed about the idea of taking her ring off. By joining hma in a marriage she is in fact committing more to the relationship. Anne will not be tied to him in any other way than emotional at least initialy. They may be loved equally but the level of "real life", day to day integration, and legally functioning commitment is greater for violet.

There is an aspect of adulthood that seems to be missing when discussing equality and levels of commitment in a lot of these threads.
Adults build unions that are not only based on loving emotion. They build them on paying taxes, maintaining households, creating retirement plans, and mowing the fucking lawn. Real life shit. It's great to have relationships based on dating, intimacy, sex and common interests…but it is the ones that hold up to the day to day stuff that embody commitment, dedication and sustainability.

That doesn't make other relationships not worth pursuing or any less rewarding in some ways. But it makes them different.

Value in anything is generally a reflection of what is put into the equation. Why should this be any different when dealing with romantic relationships?

If it is a visible disparity that hma is concerned about, get anne a ring too. Don't water down the symbols of violet's marriage; elevate the symbols of anne's commitment to hma and her.

this!
 
There is an aspect of adulthood that seems to be missing when discussing equality and levels of commitment in a lot of these threads.
Adults build unions that are not only based on loving emotion. They build them on paying taxes, maintaining households, creating retirement plans, and mowing the fucking lawn. Real life shit. It's great to have relationships based on dating, intimacy, sex and common interests…but it is the ones that hold up to the day to day stuff that embody commitment, dedication and sustainability.

I agree with this, which is why I brought up the legalities of marriage in the first place. So the question is: In a long term functioning committed triad, must that level of commitment only be limited to being between two members of the triad? Must there always be a third one out in such a situation?

I don't know the answer to that. I do know that if I was approaching a long term triad arrangement, I would certainly want to have access to that kind of commitment. Perhaps Anne doesn't want that level of commitment. Perhaps she does want it but doesn't feel she can have it so she's not committing fully. I honestly don't know what her level of commitment is here because her's is the only voice that hasn't been heard in this debate.

Violet has every right to see through the commitment of marriage that she and HMA are embarking on. She has every right to want to keep her ring on as a symbol of that huge part of her life that she's giving over to HMA. But if that is indeed what she wants, then that would seem to be at odds with trying to have another equal partner to build a triad with.

Do I think there's anything wrong with that? No. Perhaps the triad isn't meant to be equal...I have no idea. That type of arrangement is a happy arrangement that exists for many people. However, since it does seem to be a source of conflict as it's been written here, then it would also suggest that it might not be happy for all involved. But again, I don't know because not all parts of this have been heard. So before anyone jumps down my throat for it, I'm only offering a perspective and that's it.
 
Triad Equality

<snip>

(As far as the Anne ready to commit, there's been some talk about opening the relationship. Anne wants to fuck other guys. Not add them to the relationship, just have FWB. But she doesn't really want HMA to see other women, or me to do so either. She said maybe she'd be okay with it if HMA let her fuck other men, but SHE was the one at the beginning who said she wanted it to be a closed relationship. Despite that she was still seeing someone who had NO idea about us, and even after she told us she was breaking it off with him, knowing full well we were uncomfortable with her fucking other people – and knowing we weren't allowed that freedom, she flew to Cali and fucked him. Thanks, Anne. I'm still miffed. So there's been some talk about giving her what she needs and letting her spread her wings – but because of what all three of us, not just HMA and I, want out of a relationship, letting her do so and instead of her being equal, have her be secondary for a while until she's ready and done her thing. So yeah.)

This was added to the original post yesterday. Maybe it will answer some of that For you.
 
This was added to the original post yesterday. Maybe it will answer some of that For you.

No it doesn't because that is somebody speaking *for* Anne from their perspective and understanding, not Anne's. Anne's actual perspective and point of view has yet to be seen on this board.

Not saying whether it's right or wrong or anything. Just acknowledging that the boards do not give a complete picture.
 
This was added to the original post yesterday. Maybe it will answer some of that For you.

Thanks for that snippet, Sunshine Girl. I think we are possibly seeing a case of people not being at the same stage of poly exploration. I see this at our meetings; people just discovering poly, defining it for themselves, learning what they really want. Others have more experience, explored more and have a clearer picture of what they want. I think Anne is a little behind in her exploration and needs time to evaluate what it is she exactly wants from the relationship. It may be a case of I want total freedom with others (such as fwb) but total security with others (her triad).
Hopefully she is not viewing the triad as a safety blanket to run to when there is no fwb or casual aquaintences to occupy her.

Then again, I might be full of shit :) Only Anne knows.
 
Last edited:
I just want to mention that although I may seem a little harsh in my assessment of the impact and commitments that "third's" have within relationships... I am one. Not in the sexual way, but in the family way. I have thought about these things extensively: my commitment, contribution and impact. I accept and know what I bring to the table and what I don't.
 
I agree with this, which is why I brought up the legalities of marriage in the first place. So the question is: In a long term functioning committed triad, must that level of commitment only be limited to being between two members of the triad? Must there always be a third one out in such a situation?

I don't know the answer to that. I do know that if I was approaching a long term triad arrangement, I would certainly want to have access to that kind of commitment. Perhaps Anne doesn't want that level of commitment. Perhaps she does want it but doesn't feel she can have it so she's not committing fully. I honestly don't know what her level of commitment is here because her's is the only voice that hasn't been heard in this debate.

Violet has every right to see through the commitment of marriage that she and HMA are embarking on. She has every right to want to keep her ring on as a symbol of that huge part of her life that she's giving over to HMA. But if that is indeed what she wants, then that would seem to be at odds with trying to have another equal partner to build a triad with.

Do I think there's anything wrong with that? No. Perhaps the triad isn't meant to be equal...I have no idea. That type of arrangement is a happy arrangement that exists for many people. However, since it does seem to be a source of conflict as it's been written here, then it would also suggest that it might not be happy for all involved. But again, I don't know because not all parts of this have been heard. So before anyone jumps down my throat for it, I'm only offering a perspective and that's it.

Personally I think what you wrote here makes sense. But I would put a spin on it. ;)

Were it me, I would want all three people in a long-term triad to be equal in commitment level. I would not want anyone to be "the third". All parts equilateral so to speak.
BUT presuming that would happen at some point in my life going forward-I have already spent 11 years with Maca and I would not give up my wedding ring. I WOULD create some other form (other rings, tattoos, whatever) of recognition. But just because your life changes (My opinion) doesn't negate the importance of what WAS prior to the change...

So I think there is a way to compromise with this issue and I think it's absolutely absurd not to if the primary reason is that it is inconvenient or seems trivial to others...
I think her desire to keep her rings is reasonable (presuming the triad remains) and I think it shouldn't be such a battle. (but that's just me).
 
Then again, I might be full of shit :) Only Anne knows.

This might be a bit of a tangent, but way back when I first joined this board there was a thread from a couple that had a committed triad with a third that didn't work out. It basically amounted to something like "Our third didn't behave the way we wanted her to in the relationship. What went wrong?"

Most of the answers consisted of all sorts of speculation about whether she was honest, really poly, etc. I really had to facepalm all the vilification of her. I'm kind of seeing the same thing here. The only piece of info I can glean from all of this is what Alex said. It seems that there are different goals at play here. But I can't speculate as to Anne's goals because her voice hasn't been at the table.

Now perhaps people will think this is another "think about the third" soapbox post, but rest assured I would have the very same issue if it were a member of the couple that wasn't represented. It just so happens that it's usually the third's voice that get's heard the least around here.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top