Misperceptions of others/how to be candid w/o turning ppl off?

stargazer23

New member
This weekend, I spent time at a party/electronic music event and had planned on meeting one of my interests there. We've been texting like crazy for weeks now and it was finally a good chance to talk in a little more one-on-one way over drinks in a casual setting

He showed up an hour or so after I did and we sat down together and started to talk over drinks. At one point we started kissing and things felt really really good.

Things were going well until I told point blank that I'm poly...and something in his face changed. The tone went instantly from being sort of intimate and sweet to him being sort of hyper. He suddenly turned UBER excitable and silly and jokey. Then he sort of...pulled from me. He got very social and distracted and sort of stopped paying attention to me in favor of other friends. I figured I'd just let him greet his friends and come back to him later so I drifted off for awhile.

When I found him again, I tried to break the ice by kissing him again but it was weird, felt dark. Not warm like before. He became sort of...rude. He made some innuendo-type jokes that made me feel a little demeaned. Then he flat out told me: "Don't worry about me, I'm undateable. But that's okay, you are too, right? I mean, that's what you are, you don't want to commit to anybody right?"

I tried to explain that he had it wrong, that's not what that means at all. Tried to explain, explain, explain... I asked him "Why are you acting like this all the sudden?"

He said "Like what? I act like this all the time. Don't worry about me, let's just be friends, okay?"

Ouch.

I'm doin it wrong.
 
He said "Like what? I act like this all the time. Don't worry about me, let's just be friends, okay?"

Ouch.

I'm doin it wrong.

Hi Stargazer,

Ouch is right <<grin>>

The world is what it is. Knowledge of poly is still uncommon and there's a LOT of mis-perceptions associated with it.
It's a topic you have to kind of sneak up on - and avoid stereotyped terms/phrases. Like "poly" lol

At some point in an early relationship - but not (in my experience anyway) in the first date or two - the topic will drift around to views on "fidelity". And usually sexual preference too. At this point, tossing out a comment like " I don't believe monogamy is natural to humans - or necessarily the best model" is enough to launch the discussion - OR - draw the reaction you got from this guy.

Then you take it from there :)

GS
 
I mean, that's what you are, you don't want to commit to anybody right?"

And there is the crux of probably the hardest concept to overcome with non-monogamy. Until people can wrap there head around the idea of commitment without exclusivity, the battle for understanding will continue.

Why am I so sure of this? Because after over two and a half years of a loving relationship and being amongst the poly poly community, I still don't really understand it myself. Redpepper is more committed to me than anyone and yet I still cannot explain what the concept of commitment in an open poly relationship is. I see it with her and PN. They are like a life team, working together to achieve goals and face the challenges of living together and yet I struggle with the concept of poly marriages. I know there are already threads on this topic. But I felt this particular statement really points out a huge hurdle for poly acceptance.
 
Last edited:
I'm doin it wrong.

Nope.

Isn't your problem--it's his. The initial ignorance can be easily forgiven, the refusal to consider your explanations just means he's got issues.
 
I never use any form of the word "poly" when I first tell someone about me. I talk about exclusivity and non-exclusivity, and if the convo continues, I mention "cultivating multiple committed loving relationships." I have been surprised that several guys do know the word poly, but yes, I still had to explain to some that it does not preclude love and commitment.

If there was any mistake made, perhaps this should have been brought up much earlier, during your texting, etc., to make sure he understood before meeting you, what you are into. Ah well, maybe you can still get through to him, maybe not. Consider it a learning experience and move on!
 
"cultivating multiple committed loving relationships."

This is nicely put NYC. How would you explain "committed" if asked what it meant? How would you distinguish these types of relationships from simply friends with benefits?

I guess I struggle with the actual differences myself. I see lots of people locally who are in poly relationships but sometimes wonder if there is anything other than sex or saying I love you that distinguishes them from mere friendships. Maybe there is no tangible differences...maybe it is just an emotional sense of connection?

sorry to ramble..I go on these cycles of bewilderment :eek: I think I am so ingrained with the traditional idea of commitment that it's hard for me to see passed that conditioning. It's like I almost get it and then it slips away.
 
"cultivating multiple committed loving relationships."

This is nicely put NYC. How would you explain "committed" if asked what it meant? How would you distinguish these types of relationships from simply friends with benefits?

Jeez, I'm figuring it out as I go along! LOL.

But seriously, when I think of the word "commitment" I think of people aligning themselves toward the same goal. Basically, it's like a contract or agreement, and the commitment will mean whatever the people involved want it to mean, depending on what they're committing to.

They can be in an open relationship and committed to honesty and safer sex; they can be poly-fi and committed to being faithful to each other; they can be monogamous and committed to growing old together. Of course, these are just a few scenarios off the top of my head, but you get the idea. It can be any combination of whatever the people want. But I do think progression toward deeper understanding and knowledge of each other, and self-growth, is a part of being committed.

I think that, simply, the act of committing to/with someone is a form of allegiance and a promise to work toward something and support each other in that endeavor.

The difference between that and FWB? I would say FWB is recreational, more spontaneous thing, no kind of "contract" to work toward something or see the relationship progress. It's just about satisfaction in the moment and knowing that it could be set aside at any time for something more pressing or important -- although that does not preclude respectful treatment and honesty as well.
 
Last edited:
They can be in an open relationship and committed to honesty and safer sex; they can be poly-fi and committed to being faithful to each other; they can be monogamous and committed to growing old together. Of course, these are just a few scenarios off the top of my head, but you get the idea. .

I do get the idea actually:) I always see commitment from the standard mono take of "intended" lifelong partnership. But commitment can be defined any way that suits us really. Hmmm, things to think about :)
 
Hmm, I still think of commitment as an intended life-long partnerships. Just with potentially more people.

Or more likely, commitment to me is the promise to stay together through thick and thin, to work out problems and not to give up.
 
My definition of commitment is similar to BlackUnicorn's.

I went to check an example of wedding vows to analyze with that in mind:

In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow. I promise to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honor and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live.

Now, unless you think of "faithful" as meaning "not poly", the rest is all the same. For me, committed means you vow to be there for that person if they get sick, if they lose their job, but also in happy times such as happy times with other partners they might have, and to include them in your happiness with others.
You will support them in their goals, as well, and give them your respect.

All of that applies. To me, the "till death do us part" section does not apply, and yet it does. What I mean by that is that for instance Raga and I broke up and I believe it's a good decision. But because we committed to one another I still feel committed to him in supporting him and being there for him and being part of each other's lives, even though we're not in a relationship anymore.

So I would replace the "till death do us part" with "if we were to break up, that part of my life would always remain part of me, and you would always remain someone who has been important to me and remain a part of my life". Or something to that effect.

I also believe that in poly relationships, committing to a partner also means committing to their existing partners (although in a different way) and committing to help them in their future dating, wooing and other such things.
 
Well, all that still comes under how I view commitment -- an allegiance and promise between people who are aligned toward the same goals. If it's a life-long commitment, that's up to the people involved. But I think you can still be committed to someone with whom you are in a relationship, without that commitment necessarily meaning marriage or forever -- or even long-term. You can commit to supporting your partner(s) to be the best they can be, for example, without a time stamp on it.
 
Last edited:
You can commit to supporting your partner(s) to be the best they can be, for example, without a time stamp on it.

I agree, on the other hand it's a bit harder to explain it, I find. Because if there is no time stamp, it can sound like you'll run away whenever it stops being practical, you know what I mean? If you say "I'll be there for you, except at any point I might decide not to be anymore", it doesn't feel as strong a commitment, because it feels like you're simply agreeing to be there right now, while everything's going fine (or ok) and you might just go when something goes wrong.

Of course, you might even if you say you will, so that's beyond the point. Commitment isn't about telling someone you'll be there for them, it's about actually being there for them when needed. It's done through actions and not words.
 
I think of committment as having varying levels. For example, the committment I have with Beloved is the type described by Tonberry and others - lifelong, work through problems, never give up on the relationship, even as it changes, etc.

But I can also see myself developing relationships with committments that are not so all-encompassing, or lifelong, or connected to goals. I tend to think of committments as an agreement between partner(s) that can vary in length, width, breadth. And a committment should be capable of evolving. A commitment for me is not automatically lifelong or 'never say die!' in terms of a relationship. But it is something I take very seriously, and I would even if it wasn't a forever kind of thing.

That old pesky definitions question again... :)
 
. . . if there is no time stamp, it can sound like you'll run away whenever it stops being practical, you know what I mean? If you say "I'll be there for you, except at any point I might decide not to be anymore" . . .

Well, see, the way you're putting it looks like the commitment is not being taken seriously and is belittled in some way if it isn't forever. Hogwash! If I commit to giving and nurturing my partner in the best way possible, to be there for them through thick and thin, and to always have their back, that would also include letting the relationship go if that was what was needed for the person to thrive and be healthy emotionally. I do not need them to be tethered to me for me to love, encourage, and support them. It's not about running away when it suits me but looking at how a relationship has evolved and seeing if there is a need to part company. If a relationship ends, it isn't necessarily a failure or lack of commitment -- it could be exactly what the relationship needed.
 
We talked about this on the fb group I admin. For what its worth this is what I wrote about commitment

"Commitment comes with time, turmoil, and life lessons together," what Mark said, and "I myself want long term, happy, relationships, and if I'm going to have those things, it will be because of what I and my partners do to create those things, not because we've said we're going to create those things," what Matt said.

Commitment comes for me when I push through the hard stuff with someone and see to the other side a deeper understanding, respect and connection with another. People who are not willing to be emotionally open and honest with me don't generally make it in terms of my commitment to them, nor do people who I discover I just can't seem to connect with for whatever reason.

Commitment is not so much about partners as it is about individuals I love and am close to or have potential to be close to. The partnership part comes in when I completely trust them enough to let EVERYTHING go and believe that they won't leave me for it. I become very committed at that point for the long haul. Trust is huge for me, if that were to break I doubt I would be able to be committed.
 
Well, see, the way you're putting it looks like the commitment is not being taken seriously and is belittled in some way if it isn't forever. Hogwash! If I commit to giving and nurturing my partner in the best way possible, to be there for them through thick and thin, and to always have their back, that would also include letting the relationship go if that was what was needed for the person to thrive and be healthy emotionally. I do not need them to be tethered to me for me to love, encourage, and support them. It's not about running away when it suits me but looking at how a relationship has evolved and seeing if there is a need to part company. If a relationship ends, it isn't necessarily a failure or lack of commitment -- it could be exactly what the relationship needed.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I'm just saying it's harder to explain it when people say you're just thinking of keeping a door open to run away, although I guess you did it well (explaining it, I mean).
 
Back
Top