V-type polyamory relationships

CuriouslyPoly

New member
I'm just trying to understand how V-type polyamory relationships work. What I don't get is how one person or two people can be mono while one or two are poly?

From what I understand, mono relationships involve one-on-one. Anything extra nullifies the term. So how can one claim to be mono and be open to let a poly person be in a relationship with either another poly or mono person? :confused:

I see triads making sense because I can see the three as exclusive to just the three. Though if somehow one or two of the three decides to add another person in the relationship, and that person is mono and doesn't want to associate himself/herself with the others, again, it's the same problem as I stated.

I acknowledge that everyone involved consents to have this open relationship, but I just don't see how V-type poly relationships can have one or two claim to be mono.

Thoughts and opinions welcome. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand your question. I think it might revolve around the difference between the terms as they're applied to people and as they're applied to relationships.
  • A mono person is, can and/or wants to be involved with no more than one person at a time.
  • A poly person is, can and/or wants to be involved with more than one person at a time.
  • A mono relationship involves no more than two people at once.
  • A poly relationship can involve more than two people.

If a mono person is involved with a poly person who has other partners that doesn't magically make them poly, but it does mean they're involved in a poly relationship.
 
Start with the premise that a couple is made of two individual people. One person has one romantic relationship with the other half of the couple. They aren't open to having another romantic relationship simultaneously, regardless of whether it would be a closed triad. Hopefully, this is because they only want one romantic relationship, as opposed to someone else forcing that on them. This person is monogamous.

The other person is open to having additional relationships at the same time. They have the potential for multiple loving relationships and wish to keep that option open. That person is polyamorous.
 
In other words, there is a difference between how an individual chooses to interact as an individual and the relationship type they have. A Polyamorous person can be in a Monogamous relationship and a Monogamous person can be in a Polyamorous relationship.
 
What they said.

I'm mono. I have one relationship with my partner, P.

P is poly. He has two long-term relationships and is open to dating. I'm not involved in any of these dates, or in his other relationship outside of knowing her as a friend, and as long as he and I have our time together, and my health is not put at risk, I'm mostly good with it.

His OSO is also poly but is currently only in a long-term relationship with him.

MY preferences (mono) are for me. By choosing to be with a poly partner, I know that my relationship is no longer a true mono one, but my relationship with him is just with him, period, and I want no other relationships.
 
Murf is mono. He only has a romantic and sexual relationship with me. He has no interest in a sexual or romantic relationship with my other husband. They are both very straight .

Butch is polycurious. If he started dating a woman I wouldn't be in a romantic or sexual relationship with her.

Murf is only in a "poly" relationship because he fell for me in real life. This is not something he was looking for. If something were to happen to Butch, I could easily find myself in a monogamous relationship by choice. I would still be polyamorous, just not practicing at that time, by my choice.
 
Just because one person is in a V, it does not automatically mean that this person's two partners must be monogamous, nor that the V is closed (or polyfidelitous).

Their partners (the people who are at the ends of that V, or the "arms") can have other relationships, too, but those people in those other relationships just might not be involved with or even know that person who is the "hinge" of the V.

The V only refers to one specific group of three people, two of which are in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with one of them, but not with each other. So, one person can be in a V but their partners can be in different Vs or other configurations with other people.

Example:
Jane is the hinge person in a V with Jack and Joe. None of them are married, and they all live alone. Let's call that V #1. Jack is also in a relationship with Susie, who knows about and has met Jane and Joe, but is not involved with either of them. So, besides being one arm of V #1, Jack is also the hinge person in Vee #2 with Jane and Susie.​
Susie is also married to Sam. So, besides being one arm in V #2, this makes Susie the hinge person in V #3. Her husband Sam has two girlfriends, Lacey and Tracey, who are involved with each other. Together, Sam is in a triad with Lacey and Tracey, as well as being one arm of V #3 with his wife Susie.​
Now, either Lacey or Tracey could be involved with other people, too. Their triad is not closed (obviously, since Sam is married to Susie who is straight and not involved with Lacey or Tracey). Anyway, let's go back to Joe of V #1. He's involved with Jane, which makes him one arm of V #1, but Joe has a boyfriend, Jerry, so he's also the hinge person of V #4.​
Jerry is married to Jeff, which means that, in addition to being one arm of V #4, Jerry is the hinge in V #5. Jeff, though, is monogamous with Jerry and has no interest in having another relationship. Even though Jeff is monogamous, he is one arm of V #5 because his spouse is polyamorous and in two Vs, but that's fine with Jeff because no matter how many people Jerry might be involved with, they are happy together.​

See, it could go on and on and on. Some people refer to Vs that connect like this as "N" or "Z" relationships. And those can connect and make a whole string of Ns and Zs. You could call that a network or constellation. There are solo practitioners of poly, who prefer to keep all their relationships separate (as I do). So I would only be in Vs, that's it. I'm a straight woman and only date straight men, so I'm not gonna ever be in a triad of any kind. This means, I could have three boyfriends who are not involved with each other, which would make me the hinge of a "W," but that would not automatically mean they are each monogamous with me. Any or all of them might choose to be, but they all could have other relationships, as well.

There is no rule that says a V must have two mono people who are only involved with one poly hinge person, with no other relationships or dalliances allowed. Did someone tell you that? Of course, there are situations just like that, but it isn't the only way a V works. Keep in mind that not all triads are polyfidelitous (faithful only to each other), either.

Essentially, it is not the configuration that matters. It is how well each person manages their respective relationships, and whether each person in any relationship feels respected, valued, and heard, that matters.
 
Last edited:
I can't have a partner in common with my husband, because I am heterosexual. He cannot have a partner in common with me, because he is also heterosexual. Thus, we are not able to have triads at all, period, we have only had vees and quads.

I find it so strange that so many people, poly ones included, assume that women in particular in this lifestyle are all bisexual.
 
Last edited:
A V (and a triad) can be exclusive OR not exclusive to each other.

So, for example, there could be a triad. For ease of discussion, let's say they live together: A, B, C partners. They could each have other partners: D, E, F. Maybe those people don't live with them. This is why they are a triad. They live together. They may also be another configuration when considered from an alternate point besides "who lives together."

We were a quad for a long time, because there were four parental figures in our home who worked together as a family, even though one of the four was not sexually involved with anyone else in the household.

Sexually, we are a V. I am the hinge. GG is mono, meaning he doesn't choose to have more than one partner at any given time (and for the last 15 years has been exclusively with me). Maca is poly because he's willing to have other partners (though he doesn't have any at the moment). I am poly because I have two partners. We are in a poly configuration because one of us has more than one partner.
 
Example:
Jane is the hinge person in a V with Jack and Joe. None of them are married, and they all live alone. Let's call that V #1. Jack is also in a relationship with Susie, who knows about and has met Jane and Joe, but is not involved with either of them. So, besides being one arm of V #1, Jack is also the hinge person in Vee #2 with Jane and Susie.​
Susie is also married to Sam. So, besides being one arm in V #2, this makes Susie the hinge person in V #3. Her husband Sam has two girlfriends, Lacey and Tracey, who are involved with each other. Together, Sam is in a Triad with Lacey and Tracey, as well as being one arm of V #3 with his wife Susie.​
Now either Lacey or Tracey could be involved with other people, too. Their triad is not closed (obviously, since Sam is married to Susie who is straight and not involved with Lacey or Tracey). Anyway, let's go back to Joe of V #1. He's involved with Jane which makes him one arm of V #1, but Joe has a boyfriend, Jerry, so he's also the hinge person of V #4.​
Jerry is married to Jeff, which means that, in addition to being one arm of V #4, Jerry is the hinge in V #5. Jeff, though, is monogamous with Jerry and has no interest in having another relationship. Even though Jeff is monogamous, he is one arm of V #5 because his spouse is polyamorous and in two vees, but that's fine with Jeff because no matter how many people Jerry might be involved with, they are happy together.​

I had to slowly read all this. I don't know how one can track different networks in the relationship with consistency. What I see though is that V-type relationships are an open chain.

I'm probably going to offend some here since I can't find a better word. :(

In my opinion, V-types are probably a chain of open relationships and not really poly ones. Fine, some of you can call them networks, to encompass the whole chain of people involved, but I think V-type polyamorous relationships are a misnomer. It's just part of a chain of open relationships.

See, it could go on and on and on.
Exactly.

I find it so strange that so many people, poly ones included, assume that women in particular in this lifestyle are all bisexual.
Well, it's assumed, and it's pretty straightforward, at least for me and a lot of people. Plus it can go the same for men. There are men who are also bisexual.
 
I think V-type polyamorous relationships are a misnomer. It's just part of a chain of open relationships.

Well, they can be. They don't have to be. I believe there are folks on this board for whom there is a "hinge" and two "arms" and that's it. It's a "closed" or "poly-fi" vee. A V can be open, as well. The open/closed nature of the relationship isn't dependent on its structure.

Well, it's assumed and it's pretty straightforward, at least for me and a lot of people. Plus it can go the same for men. There are men who are also bisexual.

Sure, but the thing about absolutes is that one piece of evidence to the contrary throws the whole statement out the window. Yes, many people in poly relationships are bi or pansexual, but many aren't, same as in monogamous relationships.
 
Why only the two options of open OR poly? Ethical non-monogamy comes in all sizes and shapes. It can be:

open
closed
polyamorous
swinging
casual sex
non-sexual emotional relationships
(something else I cannot think of)

AND it can be any combination of these, really.

CuriouslyPoly, it would be interesting to hear your definition of "really poly."

Me and my relationships, for example:
I am a hinge of a V between my husband CJ and my OSO Mark. This makes me poly, and the whole configuration polyamorous. I am committed and long-term with both of them; a lot of love is involved. At the moment I am not looking for more partners, as I've reached my polysaturation point.

Mark chooses to be mono, meaning he does not want any romantic or sexual involvement with anyone other than me. CJ is open and looking for another long-term relationship. CJ and I also occasionally engage in casual threesome sex with a male friend of ours.

So, in your mind, are we not "really poly"? I mean, you can have all the definitions you want. I'd be interested to know where I and my relationships fail to fit your definition of poly.

What about a closed poly-fi V? Is that "really poly"?
 
Defining

In my opinion, V-types are probably a chain of open relationships and not really poly ones. Fine, some of you can call them networks to encompass the whole chain of people involved, but I think V-type polyamorous relationships are a misnomer. It's just part of a chain of open relationships.

It's funny, I kind of struggle with the concept of open relationship vs. poly. It's hard, because poly is not really well known, so people come up with their own ideas of what "poly" is. To me, this is the difference: "Open" is when you have a couple who is allowed to date/play outside the relationship. "Poly" is when you start truly building and maintaining two or more significant relationships. So long as it's really centered around the couple, it's not really poly, in my mind.

But either (open and poly) could be found in BOTH structures (integrated, triad types or chains of Vs). For example, if my boyfriend and I both date this other girl, but she doesn't really get a say in the relationship, and I'm the primary and she isn't, well, that's open to me, not poly. On the other hand, if my boyfriend has a serious girlfriend and I have a serious boyfriend (two "Vs" or an "N"), and both of us are allowed to pursue the relationship to its fullest (perhaps she and I end up both meaning the same to him, and her needs matter just as much as mine), then that's poly. My boyfriend might date others, while his girlfriend might date others casually. In this case, I guess they are in both poly and open relationships. But I wouldn't consider my boyfriend and me to be in an "open" relationship. I'd consider us poly.

Does that make sense?
 
I wish I could articulate this better than I'm going to, but...

People often want to make polyamory as close to monogamy as possible, in some attempt to correct all the things that are morally wrong about it, i.e., like having sex with someone who isn't your partner in an exclusive, loving, committed relationship. These people know they desire having multiple relationships, or their partner desires having multiple relationships, but the only way they feel this can be done the "right way" is if everyone is involved with each other and the situation replicates a monogamous relationship of the traditional variety.

People who feel this way believe that monogamy is the ideal. They believe that a monogamous template for relationships is the only way to achieve "real" commitment. The absence of monogamy inherently negates commitment, in their mind, and they strive to compensate for that imagined deficit in their polyamorous relationships with "tools" such as couple privilege, unicorn hunting, controlling their partner's relationships, sex negativity and just about everything else I hate about polyamory.

/rant
 
I wish I could articulate this better than I'm going to, but...

People often want to make polyamory as close to monogamy as possible, in some attempt to correct all the things that are morally wrong about it, i.e., like having sex with someone who isn't your partner in an exclusive, loving, committed relationship. These people know they desire having multiple relationships, or their partner desires having multiple relationships, but the only way they feel this can be done the "right way" is if everyone is involved with each other and the situation replicates a monogamous relationship of the traditional variety.

People who feel this way believe that monogamy is the ideal. They believe that a monogamous template for relationships is the only way to achieve "real" commitment. The absence of monogamy inherently negates commitment, in their mind, and they strive to compensate for that imagined deficit in their polyamorous relationships with "tools" such as couple privilege, unicorn hunting, controlling their partner's relationships, sex negativity and just about everything else I hate about polyamory.

/rant

See, you're making as many false assumptions as the OP here. I often think that my style of poly closely resembles monogamy, but it's not an attempt to "fix" monogamy. It's simply the way it's fallen into place for me, due to all sorts of things. If I tried to do the network-type poly, and had two completely isolated relationships, I'd end up having both fall apart. :p Being able to have all partners get along and support each other is very important to me. I also like a lot of what is "traditional" in relationships, i.e., a ring, commitment ceremony, marriage if possible, living close to each other, building our lives together, children, etc.

This doesn't mean I secretly wish my partners were single and committed solely to me, it just means I've found something in between that works for me.
 
Polyamory itself is under the umbrella of consensual non-monogamy. Consensual non-monogamy involves people who have multiple sexual and/or loving relationships with the knowledge and enthusiastic consent of all involved.

I think a polyamorous individual is one who is able and desires to manage multiple romantic relationships at the same time.

Polyamory as a relationship style is where a person is open to developing multiple loving relationships at the same time. They may not currently be in multiple, loving relationships, but there is the potential for them to develop relationships with that level of commitment and intimacy, if the chance arises.

People who are not open to having more than one loving relationship and wish to restrict the emotional and/or romantic commitment outside a primary relationship are not polyamorous, because they aren't open to maintaining multiple loving relationships. Some swingers, for example, set these rigid boundaries.

But you don't get to say what relationships are loving, or who is or isn't open to multiple loving relationships, unless you are in those relationships. If someone self-identifies to restricting themselves to one "proper" relationship, but will have sex with others, sure, you can say that doesn't fit the poly definition of "multiple loving relationships." But if someone practicing solo poly tells you that they have a number of partners, some sexual, some loving, some both, all separate, you don't get to say that isn't polyamory because it doesn't reflect the traditional relationship model where you believe true love can only exist.
 
See, you're making as many false assumptions as the OP here. I often think that my style of poly closely resembles monogamy, but it's not an attempt to "fix" monogamy. It's simply the way it's fallen into place for me, due to all sorts of things. If I tried to do the network type poly...and have two completely isolated relationships...I'd end up having both fall apart :p Being able to have all partners get along and support each other is very important to me. I also like a lot of what is "traditional" in relationships, i.e. a ring, commitment ceremony, marriage if possible, living close together, building our lives together, children, etc.

Doesn't mean I secretly wish my partners were single and committed solely to me. Just means I've found something in between that works for me.
Dude, I've never heard you say that anything other than the type of model you have is not polyamory because it's just people having endless strings of seperate relationships or whatever. I'm not saying that people shouldn't practice whatever relationship style suits them, you just don't get to remove someone's perfectly acceptable poly label because they don't do the same as you.

Imagine telling everyone in a closed triad or quad that they had to use the term monogamish because they aren't open to new relationships at all times like proper poly folk. It would be ridiculous. Regardless of my beliefs on closed relationships, a healthy triad or quad involves the people in them maintaining more than one loving relationship. That's polyamory.
 
Last edited:
Why only the two options of open OR poly?

CuriouslyPoly, it would be interesting to hear your definition of "really poly".

Polyfidelity, polyexclusive or polyfaithful are the terms that makes sense to me. Add close, strictly non-sexual friendships to the mix and that's how I define poly.

I assume that open relationships have few to no boundaries, in terms of intimate relationships, while polyamorous relationships do. Again, how can one track a "polyamorous" relationship consistently over time when multiple chains of relationships can develop? To me, if some think, claim, or feel that polyamorous relationships shouldn't have limits in terms of relationships, that's not being honest. Fine, people can choose to be open and not limit themselves to one person, but claiming to be in a polyamorous relationship is a misnomer...they are open or single while engaging in casual relationships.

I can sincerely care and be happy for someone, but to me that's just me being a close friend to someone, if I'm not romantically and/or sexually interested in that person. Even if I happen to develop feelings for one of my close friends, if it's unrequited, then I would eventually discard my feelings and just be happy being close friends.

OR... what about a closed poly-fi V? Is that "really poly"?
Yeah, that makes sense to me. One is committed to poly, one is committed to poly, and poly is committed to both. But yeah, to me it's better to call it polyexclusive.
 
Last edited:
Why do you need to track what other people are doing?

Just track your own relationships. Sure, share things with your partners. Make sure you gain informed consent for things that will affect them, let them know about significant shifts in dynamics, but track? No.
 
Back
Top