Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-28-2009, 01:08 AM
greenearthal's Avatar
greenearthal greenearthal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 208
Default

I have a fidelitous preference. I have been in a totally wide open poly relationship that grew to a pretty extensive network and I found that I could be perfectly content without any caps. I have no particular desire to lay down the law or set rules for others. But finding a poly pod where most or all of the loves mutually agreed that there were enough people and were intent on strengthening the family as it was configured would suit me a lot better than wide open poly does.
__________________
me n the band, singin our song
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-28-2009, 03:38 AM
Sunshinegrl's Avatar
Sunshinegrl Sunshinegrl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 227
Default

We have a Poly Fi Triad. Just because that how it worked out. We were originally sorta a quad. BUT Again this isnt something we seeked out. It kinda just happened. Wern't looking.. It found us. No desire on anyones part to add anyone else.
__________________
I donít get many things right the first time
In fact, I am told that a lot
Now I know all the wrong turns, the stumbles and falls
Brought me here...
And where was I before the day
That I first saw your lovely face?
Now I see it everyday
And I know that I am
I am, I am
The luckiest..
~ Ben Folds five ~
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-28-2009, 04:45 AM
sweetie sweetie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 62
Default

We are a closed poly-fi V, but open ended on Sea's part. (No... Sea i'm not trying to get you a date) It is a conversation we've had many times. Although we are all content in the relationship we share, should the time ever come that she feels she wants to include someone else in our lives, I know both Tommy and I are open to it. It would obviously have be someone who we could all be comfortable with, if not necessarily a friend. Although friendship would be great. We weren't looking for this relationship, and it happened, so who knows maybe some fantastic guy will take her fancy.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-28-2009, 02:37 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

We have a modified closed "v" in a polyfidelous dynamic. The reasons for this are mainly for my own health LOL! My reasons for this are based on a deeply wired aproach to sexuality/love and commitment. I'm not even going into more detail as this has all been spelled out in previous posts.

I have simply entered a poly dynamic that works for me luckily
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-28-2009, 04:11 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

I have a couple of thoughts. I still get a bit bothered by the perception that keeping a relationship open somehow equates to collecting lovers or maintaining a level of casualness. That is not always the case.

The guy I've started exploring a relationship with already has 4 serious partners. These are all long term relationships of 5 or more years. But he doesn't view any of his partnerships as primary. He recently bought a house with one of his partners, but that doesn't put her "first". Exploring a new connection with me is doing nothing to take away from the connections he already has. And while our connection is new and doesn't run as deep yet as his other connections, that does not make our connection casual at all.

Basically, there's a difference between being open to new partners and actively seeking new partners. Both have their place in open relationship structures. I'm going to trust any partners I have to be able to make those decisions while still honoring the relationship we have.

Also, with the time management issue...this is something that every relationship has to deal with, poly, mono, friendships, families and everything in between. The same guy who writes the Xeromag website wrote some nice thoughts on time management in his journal.

http://tacit.livejournal.com/280579.html
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-28-2009, 04:32 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
He recently bought a house with one of his partners, but that doesn't put her "first".
http://tacit.livejournal.com/280579.html
I agree that this doesn't necessarily put her "first" emotionally, but the health of their relationship will definitely have a greater overall impact on his life do to financial entanglement. I would think he would be more aware of maintaining their dynamic.

I guess it comes down to overall impact of the relationship. If I view it this way it seems clear to me;

- If Redpepper and I need to reshape our relationship into a friendship then there is heart ache and internal emotional impact.
- If Redpepper and her husband need to redefine their relationship there is the issue of dividing assets, child care, support payments, and various other external issues added to the emotional stuff that will result in a much greater impact across a broad spectrum.

This leads to an obvious choice of which relationship to prioritize when push comes to shove. I would expect it no other way.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-28-2009, 04:41 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
I agree that this doesn't necessarily put her "first" emotionally, but the health of their relationship will definitely have a greater overall impact on his life do to financial entanglement. I would think he would be more aware of maintaining their dynamic.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by being more aware of maintaining their dynamic. The partner he just bought a house with is also married with her own child and lives between the two houses. Buying the house together grew out of the dynamic they already have. I have no sense that this is something they feel the need to protect or maintain, or that other relationship decisions have to be modified so that they can maintain what they have.

I think it comes down to being aware within all the relationships, not trying to protect certain dynamics over others.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-28-2009, 04:51 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post

I think it comes down to being aware within all the relationships, not trying to protect certain dynamics over others.

For me it comes down to how much you have invested in each relationship. In my opinion, Redpepper has an emotional investment in me. She has an emotional, parental, financial and legal investment with her husband. There is more at stake in that relationship and therefore should be the area where priority is placed.

I'm not thinking of your friends relationship specifically however if the woman who he bought the house with went off the deep end she would have the capacity to affect his life across a broader spectrum than a person with a solely emotional entanglement. Therefore it is in his best interest to foster that relationship with greater emphasis.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-28-2009, 05:04 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
I'm not thinking of your friends relationship specifically however if the woman who he bought the house with went off the deep end she would have the capacity to affect his life across a broader spectrum than a person with a solely emotional entanglement. Therefore it is in his best interest to foster that relationship with greater emphasis.
If I was fostering a relationship for reasons such as protecting myself from the damage my partner can do (even in part) I would seriously be reconsidering whether or not that's a relationship I should be in. I generally assume that my partners want to be with me and cherish the connection we have. My choices are going to be based on those things and not on worst case scenarios.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-28-2009, 05:30 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
My choices are going to be based on those things and not on worst case scenarios.

I think we are totally mis-communicating, Ceoli.
My point is - relationships are not only based on "how much love" there is. That love could be equal among limitless people. Once you bring in external commitments, obligations, and responsibilities, relationships will naturally become prioritized based on the levels of integration. A casual, tertiary, secondary, FWB or anything else who contributes solely on an emotional level is not going to have the same priority or impact of someone who contributes across a broader spectrum.

Some relationships will be "more important" in the big picture because they are more involved on other levels.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 PM.