The closed FMF

Ravenscroft

Banned
First, let me make clear that I raise this issue in order to ask questions that have been bugging me (for like 30 years), not to make any pronouncements. There's some very cool people on this site, & I'm hoping that maybe others can finally help me make some sense of it all.
________________

Some background.

Before the term "polyamory" came into vogue, our household (Minneapolis) was in touch with Kerista (San Francisco) & not only subscribed to the PEPtalk newsletter (from a group calling itself Polyfidelitous Educational Products, publishers of The Polyfidelity Primer) but got a few articles & letters published.

Those submissions caused problems, getting us denounced in print as "abusive" & "sex-addicted" & whatnot, because we didn't see why WE had any particular need to have a closed-boundary relationship. (It didn't take hold. :D)

A few years later, local threesomes were seeking us out for advice. Good people all, but (before we had much of a vocabulary for it all) we could readily see where the problems mostly stemmed from trying to shoehorn another person into a dyad. This was so far away from our ways that we often felt inadequate to address their rather specific needs.

When we hosted discussions, most people there were of the "couple seeking" variety.

The stereotype kept growing. The founding dyad was almost always married... the M "very supportive of me exploring my sexuality" (meaning "trying bi")... the "new girl" would be a decade younger... childfree but hoping to change that... ready to move in (with minimal belongings) soon after sexual intimacy began...

Now, I am really big on mentoring by more-experienced peers. I thus figured it'd be a great idea for the various vees & triads & couples to have their own group, a safe space where they could share their specific issues & experiences with the like-minded.

And it still seems like a good idea.

My admitted bias is that (it seems, to me) couples see each other as the competition. Though their experiences could help others in similar situations, they are reluctant to possibly give some advantage in "the search" because they know (perhaps unconsciously) that the likely pool of suitable "thirds" is quite small, not enough to fill demand for permanent situations much less provide casual dating-around so that the couples might explore the possibilities in a less desperate manner.
________________

One big advantage of the Internet is that triads & seekers are protected by distance AND a little bit of anonymity. They could have that "safe space" I mentioned with very little risk of competing over the same women. Experienced triads & vees could be free to offer valid advice to couples & singles intending polyfi threes.

This site has a really cool feature that seems underutilized, & strikes me as a great place for a "triadic space" to start. That would be Social Groups (under the Community tab at the top of every page). There's like 75 Groups already, with specific focuses & their own discussions away from the main board; the biggest has 256 members.

My thought is that new members to this site seeking advice on how to start, maintain, or debug a triad/vee could be encouraged toward like-minded peers for their specific (& often urgent) needs. There's MFM Vee, but even that sorta flamed out after two threads... but at least they tried.
________________

Phew. :eek:

It's a situation I would like to see improved, if possible, & I'd offer any advice I might have if I knew how. If anyone cares to elaborate on the shaky framework, have at.
 
I had no idea about that Community tab existed! Thanks!
 
So those with questions, including yourself, Raven, did you want to ask questions here or choose a group from the Community tab, or create a new group?
 
What are the questions you have Ravenscroft? Or was this more of a place marker for a space to ask questions about couples/unicorns/triads? Is the intent only focused on FMF relationships or broader gender configurations?

And yeah, I too never noticed the Community tab either despite being here for several years. Embarrassing!
 
I'd forgotten all about it even though I joined the queer group as a new member. It was so dead I didn't check it for long.
 
did you want to ask questions here or choose a group from the Community tab, or create a new group?
My druther is to discuss this in public AND to continue encouraging people who are actually in (or at least into becoming) a particular form to start one or more Community areas where they could actively support each other, rather than relying solely on the greater (random) membership. Certainly there'll be crosstalk.

I often log off with the impression that half the first-time posters here hang around just long enough to get discouraged. They're hoping to find "our third" here in a week or two (or at least easy-to-follow directions), or a simple solution to a situation they know is messed up. The former get The Usual Lecture about unicorns, the latter need to explain their situation to a poorly-lit arena of people who may never have shared a similar situation. Even if they're given (what I feel is) great advice, they generally evaporate. Maybe they'd do better AND hang around longer if they had an early opportunity to meet up with actual peers, people of similar situation &/or experience.

The following bears repeating. Due to common misuse, there are TWO meanings to the word "polyamory." Amongst ourselves, we know "polyamory" implies all sorts of stuff, like increased depth & breadth of communication, high self-awareness & introspection, & avoidance of self-blinding Romantic myth, & as well that it might NOT mean sex or deep abiding Love.

More widely, "polyamory" is used to refer to ALL forms of nonmonogamous sexuality (& even the vaguest merely-theoretical desire to explore such)... which includes polyamory.

This overinclusiveness swamps people who are testing the waters, seeking a sounding board, trying to learn the vocabulary.

Subsuming specific definable clades within the greater morass is just "melting pot" nonsense.

Polyfidelity is very specific.

Triads are very specific, as are vees (& I don't like to offhandedly lump them together BUT they do also have much in common).

FMF is very specific, & extremely common, if only as a fantasy -- open or closed, one-night-stand or Till Death, actual or "seeking" or "curious" or "hoping someday."

And, who knows? Maybe there IS an occasional HBB looking for a couple...
 
As a new member of this forum, and as a person in her first polyamorous "relationship(s)", I would find this incredibly helpful, and frankly, much less discouraging.
Thank you, Ravenscroft....
 
I also didn't know about the community tab - so I tried it out and found it hard to use. I haven't even been able to get a list of the available social groups, at least not on the first try. And apparently there is a small limit on the length of posts :confused:

Maybe having more specific sections (such as we have the dating&friendships section, with the "Europe" subforum) would help the cause better?

Anyway, I know that newcomers sometimes get the "unicorn hunter" talk and disappear, but otherwise I'm not sure that presenting their problems to a more specific audience would help. I often find myself unexpectedly able to relate to stories which on the surface don't have much in common with my own experience, or not able to relate at all to someone in the same poly configuration. So if I ask a question I find that the more people read it, the better. I guess there is some sweetspot to be met.
 
If you make it I'd love to join.
 
Funny thing about the whole unicorn business is that I actually DO see HBB's on Fetlife in the local personal ads groups, looking to join a couple.

Actually, I see that more than I see couples there seeking a "third" (of the female unicorn persuasion.)

The more common thing I see though is bi guys looking to share sex with a couple, and couples looking to do the hotwife thing, although singles (men or women) looking for other singles to hook up or partner up are the most common.

I'm just saying that I've seen enough unicorns to conclude that they aren't really all that mythical.

The question that remains, for me, though, is the viability longterm of the relationship model, as I've heard an awful lot of not-success-stories. And I certainly do see lots of bright eyed, bushy tailed couples cheerfully popping up in the community "seeking our third" and shortly after finding that it's not easy for one reason or another. Honestly...I would really like to hear more success stories from people who have done the closed FMF thing and made it work longterm. I'd like to believe that where there's a will, there's a way. And for something that so many people WANT, there's got to be some of 'em out there actually managing to pull it off, right?
 
I haven't even been able to get a list of the available social groups, at least not on the first try.
Community >> Social Groups >> View All Groups
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group.php?do=grouplist

(The part that does bug me is that there is only one category available... & that'sUncategorized. :confused: At least, I'd think that having "regional" & "other" would be somewhat useful.)
Maybe having more specific sections (such as we have the dating&friendships section, with the "Europe" subforum) would help the cause better?
What in part started me on this thread was in fact the common misunderstandings of how the (rather simple) forum structure works here. Noobs show up on Introductions & plead for help, or Meetings and Events to try hooking up with people, in both places not unusually chattering at four-year-old posts. Of those who do so in the latter, roughly half post once, get no response, & are gone.
I'm not sure that presenting their problems to a more specific audience would help. ... I guess there is some sweetspot to be met.
The "sweet spot" (IMO) would be to keep noobs around long enough to get some sort of empathetic-yet-solid feedback.

That might also mean that we can reduce the number of... oh, not wanting to sound mean but... training wheels discussions.

That's from my IRL experience, where every freakin' poly discussion-group meeting ALWAYS turned into "Jealousy: Threat, or Menace?" & soon enough drove actual practicing polyfolk away, leaving... well, one or two well-intentioned fools repeating the same litany, meet after meet. Those in a stable, happy relationship would show up & feel as though they were being talked down to, with noobs haranguiing them about the imminent danger of Jealousy. (And when I attended one with a very cute lover, the presentation soon fell apart with all the head-swivelling from the single males & "couples seeking," which seemed to indicate why they were actually there. :rolleyes:)

Online, maybe they can work better amongst themselves, with reduced distractions & side-talk, given a spot that encourages focus. That place is NOT the general fora.
I often find myself unexpectedly able to relate to stories which on the surface don't have much in common with my own experience, or not able to relate at all to someone in the same poly configuration. So if I ask a question I find that the more people read it, the better.
That's a logic leap, from "I learn so much (well, sometimes) from threads that bog down in crosstalk" to "therefore, when I have a problem I need help with, I seek out the high-distraction area."

The latter can certainly happen... for those of us with a fairly high degree of English literacy, & some ability to express ourselves properly & adequately in print, & some willingness to stand up for what we believe to be right AND to compromise when faced with a likely need for change. That does, though, clearly tend to exclude some.

That first part is certainly true -- a degree of chaos often stirs up nuggets of wisdom that otherwise get buried in boring old structure. But (again) not everyone is comfortable reading a complex thread, & I'd argue that someone who's been stuck in Romantic monogamy & is only recently familiar with the barest concept of polyamory --which seems to cover many first-time posters -- is ill suited to glean any positives from the whirlwind.

I'd hope that some Social Group or other could be a "safe space" where -- besides finding support & aid from actual peers -- they'd also give each other some breathing space, learn how the site works with less pressure, comment amongst themselves on the hot Forum threads, glance past grammatic imperfection, & overall feel less risk of judgment or criticism for honestly-made errors.
 
I've seen enough unicorns to conclude that they aren't really all that mythical.
That's why I added the ellipsis after typing that -- the thought occurred to me, "y'know, we've been saying that for so many years, what if it turns out we're strawheads?" ;)

Honestly...I would really like to hear more success stories from people who have done the closed FMF thing and made it work longterm.
Totally on board with that sentiment. :) Triad or vee, & even open would be fine.

It does seem that the discussion area often serves as one big amorphous Agony Aunt, so new joiners are probably MUCH more likely to arrive on the virtual stoop in some degree of turmoil, rather than tales of success & celebration.

As monogamy is not anywhere near a societal norm, I figure that anyone who's actually doing it -- on their own, no help but Veaux & TES, no social support network but no toxic melodrama -- might at least get curious about how it's going for like-minded people elsewhere, & fetch up here readily enough. But it does sorta look like having a big melodramatic story to tell is the ticket of entry, & what's a happy person to do? :D
________________

Before I forget: this is everything I've found here about Social Groups.
What is a social group?

A social group is a group of people usually with a particular interest or something else in common. It provides a way of communicating between members as well as sharing photos or other images.

You can get to the list through 'Group Memberships' section on your public profile.

The Social Groups list page displays all groups that have been created. You can list the groups by the number of members, messages or pictures, the group name, when the group was created or by the date of the most recent message posted. You can use the controls provided to search for a group.

How do I join a group?

To join a group, click the group title then click 'Join Group'. When you have joined a group, its name will be shown in your public profile. You must be a logged-in, registered member to join groups.

Can I create my own social group?

As a registered member, you can create your own social group (providing the administrator allows this). Go to the groups page and click 'Create A New Group'. Complete the title and description for your group then select the type. There are three types of groups:
  • Public - open to everyone. There is no restriction on who can join or who can post messages to it
  • Invite Only - require an invitation to be sent to join them. Invitations can only be sent by the group creator or forum moderators and administrators. Invitations are sent by clicking 'Pending & Invited Members' at the bottom of the page for that individual group
  • Moderated - open to everyone to join but messages need to be moderated before they will appear. They are moderated by the group creator and the site moderators and administrators
The third option is a lot of work AND tends to make the Mod look like a control freak, which is reasonable as it takes a proper obsessive/compulsive to take on that much responsibility. An open-minded benign dictator often does well in such miniature kingdoms. ;)

Properly, though, I'd want to give a founding Mod opportunity to approve memberships AND to approve posts, rather than one or the other. However, if the Mod flakes or gafiates, the Group dies; there's no apparent way for control to be passed to anew Mod.

I may have to find out for myself, but does anyone know if it'spossible to "disinvite" -- well, banish :eek: -- a Group member who's gone unruly, or proves to've entered under false circumstances?
________________

IMNSHO, what would make this better is an option to have the Group discussions made viewable ONLY by group members (& moderators & admins, of course), but that's my nature.

See, I love to learn stuff... but I really hate to look stupid by making the first attempts. I finally learned to accept the "looking stupid" part & get on with the learning, & I often develop moderate-to-high skill quite quickly at just about anything (except passing a football :(; it's just humiliating... or hilarious, depending).

Maybe new members would be more likely to open up if they didn't feel their stumbles were forever viewable to hundreds if not thousands if not billions.
________________

Well, with THAT much sorted, I hope to see good things.

The cause of this thread continues to lurk in the back of my mind.

If nothing appears, I will (likely, eventually) launch a catch-all Group, with intent of it being interim only. As stated at the beginning, I have no personal experience with polyfidelity, & I can be a bit baffled by a viewpoint that doesn't reach for maximal freedom -- even-handed moderation I can do, but with intent to eventually step away & let it be self-operating by those directly concerned.

Of course, anyone's free to beat me to it... :p
 
Re (from Spork):
"I'm just saying that I've seen enough unicorns to conclude that they aren't really all that mythical."

I'm sure that women willing to join an M/F couple do exist ... What I'm not so sure exists is women willing to be treated badly by said couple. Even if the couple doesn't realize it's treating them badly. A woman who'll take that punishment and remain satisfied is what we call a unicorn. I don't know if it exists, but I'm pretty sure there's fewer "unicorns" than there are "unicorn hunters." Also it's questionable whether the existence of a unicorn would be a good thing.

Of course I realize not everyone uses the word unicorn according to such a restrictive definition. But I think that that definition is assumed by many here on Polyamory.com (and on various other sites). I'm just sayin'.
 
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/group.php?do=grouplist

(The part that does bug me is that there is only one category available... & that'sUncategorized. :confused: At least, I'd think that having "regional" & "other" would be somewhat useful.)
Oh, my bad - I think I also got tripped up on the "uncategorized" thing, some structure would definitely help.

Originally Posted by Tinwen:
I often find myself unexpectedly able to relate to stories which on the surface don't have much in common with my own experience, or not able to relate at all to someone in the same poly configuration. So if I ask a question I find that the more people read it, the better.
That's a logic leap, from "I learn so much (well, sometimes) from threads that bog down in crosstalk" to "therefore, when I have a problem I need help with, I seek out the high-distraction area."
I think you misunderstood me here somewhat - I wasn't talking about threads departing from the original topic. I was talking about people experiencing the same psychological processes in situations that are very different on the first glance (but essentially tell the same human story).
You seem to be saying that the general forum is too inclusive to provide advice to specific relationships configurations, and that was just never my impression. However if you and others do have this problem, it probably would be worth it to have more narrow sub-areas.

The "sweet spot" (IMO) would be to keep noobs around long enough to get some sort of empathetic-yet-solid feedback.
...
Online, maybe they can work better amongst themselves, with reduced distractions & side-talk, given a spot that encourages focus. That place is NOT the general fora.
...
I'd hope that some Social Group or other could be a "safe space" where -- besides finding support & aid from actual peers -- they'd also give each other some breathing space, learn how the site works with less pressure, comment amongst themselves on the hot Forum threads, glance past grammatic imperfection, & overall feel less risk of judgment or criticism for honestly-made errors.
Yes, I get your point (although I never ever had this kind of trouble).
So, I think the cases you point out are twofold and should be addressed separately:
  • Newbies with an improper understanding of polyamory, "catching the vocabulary" etc.
  • People searching/living a specific relationship configuration (polyfidelity, FMF V, secondaries, ...), who wish to only discuss with others living that configuration

The "newbie subforum" would have to be visible on the first visit of the site, so Social Groups in their current form are probably not suitable. Maybe it could be on the same level as the poly relationships corner? I'm not sure how to make it separate from the bigger forum community though, or if it's even desirable ...

For the second case, maybe distinct social groups could work, so I will support the endeavour by pointing people towards your FMF group if you do found one :)
 
Last edited:
The expanse of human sexuality is infinite. There are dynamics that poly people do not have, and maybe are not into, and while that may carry weight, it can sometimes lead to biased advice. That is not, however, mentioned, to minimize said advice- but, I think that creating a forum for people to express feelings of discomfort within a certain construct could be very advantageous. If someone is having a problem with their "closed MFM triad", for example, it may be really good to get a bunch of responses from people who are actually in triads, or have been in triads, etc. If that makes sense?

:)
 
Back
Top