Added to, Joining In

[strixish]

Some people think that a triad wold be ideal, because they think (before they have experience) that they will somehow be less likely to feel jealousy if everyone is involved together.

(Yeah, right.)

But some people like the triad (or quad, etc.) connection because it creates a sense of family. (There's me and him, and me and her, and her and him, and then there's US, which is a separate and excellent dynamic all its own.)

That's been my experience, at least. I stumbled into it, though, and can't imagine how someone would go about creating it intentionally.

I think it is possible, though, to be a unicorn who is attracted to couples. I haven't yet decided exactly how I feel about that, or what the driving force seems to be that underlies the attraction.

[zylya]

To me there's two different sets of people saying "join our relationship" etc, the first is the poly-newbies who are honestly hoping that their unicorn-hunting fantasy will come true and a HBB will join them and love them both equally and everything will be amazing, poly-fi, secondary etc etc.

The second set, which applies to me personally, is the group of people who simply prefer triads to other relationship configurations. For me, saying I'm looking for someone to join our relationship shouldn't hold any implications of unicorn-hunting, because that's not how I view relationships, but I will admit it is probably a lazy use of language on my part. The thing for me is that saying "I'm looking for someone to join us" is far simpler than saying "I hope to find another person that we're both interested in, to some degree, who is also into us, to some degree, that we could form a whole cluster of mutually enjoyable and beneficial romantic and sexual relationships, together with no prejudice based on previous relationship status and with no unrealistic expectations other than to be totally honest with each other and let things develop naturally."

If I had to type that out every time, I'd get arthritis in my wrists in no time Saying "to join us" is just a short-hand way of saying that for me. If you think about, any relationship is a joining of two people, it's just that saying you're looking for someone to join me/us is simply from my perspective. It doesn't mean that I think the other person doesn't have a perspective, it's just a way of phrasing it.

To me, it seems like a lot of people say something without carefully considering their words, and so people assume things that weren't necessarily intended, and could've been avoided with a better use of language.

[undefinable]

Hey everyone,

I am relatively new here, but i thought i would add my own experience to the mix. Feel free to smack me in the neck if i get out of line.

My wife and I have been together for eight years. During that time our relationship, our marriage, and ourselves have changed. A lot.

One thing we have found that works is not to think of our relationship with each other as a "thing". Its not quantifiable, its not measureable, and it is not static. Our relationship is the sum of the interactions, emotions, experiences, and shared moments we have together. As we change, and we do, so does it.

I understand the distaste that comes from phrases like "adding a third" or "bringing someone in" and the like, but mostly i feel that it stems from communication issues, or a fundamental misunderstanding of a specific desire.

I dont see it as possible to "bring in" another to an existing relationship, simply because the presence of another person in that relationship will change it, for better or for worse. I do believe it possible to have another individual enter the lives of a couple, and to form a new relationship dynamic, involving all three persons. But i see it as three relationships simultaneously, both seperate from, and included in, each other.

The initial relationship is still intact at this point, with two new connections to it, interconnected, yet independent. Over time, the level that those three interactions are connected will inevitably adjust, and there is no real way of knowing what shape it will take down the line. And therin lies the rub.

How can you expect to invite someone into an existing relationship when they are independent of it to begin with?

I dont see it as possible. I do think that successful triads can and do exist, but not as a single relationship. That would be like saying a successful marriage turns two people into one. They may share goals, tastes, emotions, anything really, but at the end of the day, it is still two people with two different lives who choose to live them together.

A marriage, or any other relationship is not a static thing. It grows, evolves, changes with the people in it.

So i guess, scemantics aside, i dont see a way to "add another" to a relationship. But i do see a way to add relationships to an existing couples' lives.

Good lord, i hope i am right about at least some of this, or there are going to be some serious hurts in the future, i am sure.

TTFN,
Tim

[MeeraReed]

Let's say there are two people who are friends with each other. (Platonic friends). Maybe they're even best friends. But they feel like they always just hang out with each other instead of expanding their social circle. So they want to make new friends, maybe only one or two new friends because they're introverts and value close connections with a few people. Ideally they'd like someone who could be friends with both of them and all hang out together.

They would never say "We're looking for someone to join our friendship!"

They don't say that, because a "friendship" isn't something that can be joined. Just as a relationship, or a marriage, isn't something that can be "joined."

Friendships and relationships are FORMED between two entities, not JOINED by an extra person.

You can join a "group of friends," not a "friendship." You can join a club or a business or an organization. You can't join a relationship.

You can FORM a relationship with someone, or even with two someones, or three someones. But you can't JOIN a relationship or be added into it.

I would be more sympathetic to unicorn hunters if they said, "We are looking to re-form our marriage as a triad with a third person," rather looking to "add a third" to our wonderful, perfect marriage.

Another problem I have with the phrase "join our marriage" is that it sounds too much like "join us in bed." Joining someone in bed is fine, joining a couple in bed is fine, joining a circus is fine--but you can't join a marriage.

[Malfunktions]

I think "welcoming someone in" could be just as it implies. Currently my LTR and I are seeking but we have our understanding that we want a relationship for each of us separately just as much as we want someone to share. The dynamic should be that the "welcomed party" should be as comfortable dating each separately as they can be together. I don't think a dating together dynamic would always work because being attracted to the couple together can be so different than being attracted to the single parties.
Maybe I'm not making sense but I know I would much rather our future girlfriend date us separately to get to know us because when together couples tend to have a couple dynamic. Ie: same interests, same foods, music, points of view. Meanwhile, individually they exhibit their true colours. Like together C and I like old school rock/folk music from the 60's-90's but separately I like chill out music like the Grateful Dead and Sublime. He does not share ALL my likes. Nor I his.

Therefore, the "welcomed party" has to like us as individuals as much as we should like them .

Hopefully this makes sense.....

[MeeraReed]

Originally Posted by Malfunktions

I think "welcoming someone in" could be just as it implies.

But what i mean is that "welcoming someone in" to your marriage or relationship doesn't make sense because no one else can be IN your relationship with your husband.

[Natja]

The terms used are really one of my pet hates so I admit I am biased. I won't even read the profiles of people who have those terms in them.

[MrFarFromRight]

I suppose that I should start by saying that the whole idea of advertising for a romantic/sexual/life partner seems a bit skew-wiff to me. That's not to say that I criticise people that do it... or even that I'd NEVER do it myself. Just that it seems a bizarre concept. That's mostly because I, personally, am not interested in having sex where Love isn't involved, and as Nudibranch wrote,

Originally Posted by Nudibranch

You've hit on two gripes of my own, Vixtoria. [...] And second, the idea that a polyrelationship is something you order from a catalog.

(Though I go one further and see the validity of that sentence if you also remove the "poly" from "polyrelationship".) I can see advertising along the lines of: "Would like to meet new people, see how it goes, where the possibility of something sexual happening is not out of the question." And I suppose that lots of partner-search ads [perhaps most] actually mean this, though they don't spell it out. How many advertisers really mean: "I'm desperate for sex and promise that we'll end up fucking if you choose to answer this ad."?

But back to the poly aspect, and couples wishing to become threesomes. And part of it I've already touched on. VERY rarely do people say exactly what they mean in ads of this kind. It's difficult to bring in all the back-and-forth, pros-and-cons, desires-and-fears talks that a couple has gone through before taking the step of placing the ad.

I never tire of saying that poly is about Love, not just sex. How can a couple advertise for somebody whom they're both going to love... and who is going to love both of them??? But it might work once in a while, so, best of luck to them!

Originally Posted by km34

Would it seem less crazy if the couples said they were wanting to find someone to develop a new, lasting group marriage with instead of saying they wanted to add to their current marriage?

Originally Posted by km34

I suppose to me it's all semantics. I feel like what I said means exactly the same thing as "adding a third person," it's just phrased differently.

km34, I think that you were right the 1st time, and not so right the 2nd. They may have MEANT it to mean the same, but it doesn't.

My suggestion: "We are now a couple, but want to explore our capacity to love others. Because we are still very much in love with each other and enjoy sharing with each other the most important aspects of our lives, we would be delighted to find some third person whom we could both love and who could love both of us. We understand that we are leaping into the unknown on this. It's both an exciting and a scary prospect. Would you be interested in considering leaping with us?"

Of course, it takes a lot less time and energy to type: "looking for a third to join our relationship"...

[BoringGuy]

"poly couples" again... the oxymoron.

I read stories about attempted triads, aborted triads, triads-yet-to be manifested, where there is this "original couple" trying to "add a third", with some kind of grotesque fascination. In my own personal limited vicarious experience, I have observed that "the couple" is always assumed to be the original pair... How the third relates to the couple individually and as a unit. i never seem to notice "the couple" ever referring to one of the original pair + the third. There always seems to be an onus on "the third" to relate and adjust to the established climate of "the COUPLE". It's a subtle thing that manifests itself in ways that transcend the meaning of words on paper. It's one of those deals where what people DON'T say communicates more than whatt they DO say.

I think it's possible to BE a "poly couple", but not if your common goal is to "have a triad". Even if you (the original pair) are still "looking" for your "third", itt is not too soon to start practice losing this "us-plus-one" mentality thaat drives the agenda. the only "poly couples" are two people together at any given time who happen to be in a non-monogamous relationship agreement. When I am with my Spouse, we are a "poly couple"; when we are wiith ourr other paartners, we are each part of a "poly-couple" with them. When I am with my Other Partner, I am not thinking of my relationship with Spouse as the "REAL" couple. Likewise, I do not think of my marriage as being any more of a "REAL" poly-couple just because it's got legal paperwork and a longeer duration than Spouse's relationship with their OSO. The two of them are juust as muuch of a "poly-couple" as we are even though they've only been together for a yeaar andd don't share finances. There is no one "central" poly-couple and all other relationships are "satellites". Each relationship stands on its own as a "couple", because ultimately, you can only be in a relationship with any peerson AS one pperson. No matter how married and committed you are, you cannot merge your consciousness with another human being to the point where you act as one unit in a relationship with a "third". I know I'll probably get razzed for saying that ("my poly is not your poly" and all that knee-jerk mumbo-jumbo people like to say when they don't like it but can't think of anything else to say), as I have seen enough "poly couples" who think they are so tuned in to each other they might as well be one person instead of two. I mean, it isn't a crime to feel that way about each other, but it is a little creepy and off-putting when you take it out into public and try to find another person whom you expect to hitch their planet onto your solar system. The original "poly couple" gets to be the sun, and everyone else is just a planet?

That's my thesis about "poly couples". I don't expect anyone to change for me, and I don't even wish for that. I will continue to judge things based on what I observe and experience, however.

[MrFarFromRight]

The whole time that I was typing that last post, I was aware that Vixtoria was not just talking about ads

Originally Posted by Vixtoria

I guess what I'm baffled about is the times, and there are more than I would like, that I'm approached with a 'my husband and I would like you to join us' thing. If they are both interested in me, then fine, approach me. Separately. You are two people. I would have to see if I was interested in you as individuals. I may LOVE the way you interact as a couple, as a unit, but dating a unit just doesn't even seem possible to me. In that unit, there are two distinct people.

, but I decided to split the reply into 2 posts.

Reply a) As in my first post, sometimes it's difficult for people to articulate just what they really mean. If you're AT ALL interested in them, give them the benefit of the doubt... or at least a chance to explain themselves better.

Reply b) Sometimes couples are looking to pep up their sex lives and - as several have testified already - 3rd parties get used as sex toys.

Reply c) Different strokes for different folks. [One person's meat is another person's poison.] If you get bothered by this approach, and it IS exactly what they mean, bad luck! I DON'T mean that in a "well, tough shit!" sort of way. I really sympathise with your feelings here (although I never get approached like this). My advice: accept that it takes all kinds to make a world, and that you're not the one that they're looking for... but that they have RIGHT to look for it.

Reply d) But my overall reaction: You're right to feel leery. As in nycindie's quote from FormerUnicorn, a couple that adds a 3rd can feel all through the triad that the original couple is more important, and therefore that the 3rd is easily disposable if the going gets rough or circumstances change. And that can REALLY be devastating for the 3rd. But I clicked on that link and found an interesting introduction AND sequel to that failed triad. The bold-face has been added by me.

Originally Posted by FormerUnicorn

I tell my story elsewhere, but I was in two triads where I had been "hunted" that is specifically singled out for courtship and inclusion by partners in an already existing marriage. In this case the stage is set in certain ways: The married couple had already discussed the inclusion of another partner, they mutually decided I would be a worthy person, and they worked hard to make sure I felt welcome and wanted. This is some pretty powerful stuff! An incredible amount of validation comes out of being approached like that.

I was very happy in both triads, and my status was very fluid from secondary to primary and back again as time went on and our needs changed. There were times I lived at the house and participated in the relationships as a primary partner in terms of responsibility, care, and money, and there were other times when I was merely a large part of their lives, secondary in nature but still hugely and intimately connected.

I was very committed to the first triad, but I was shut out completely when they found out they were pregnant. It was heartbreaking for me, because I lost my lovers, my best friends, my refuge, everything that defined me. I went my own way and picked up the pieces alone. I eventually reconnected with them after the baby was born, but I couldn't trust they wouldn't abandon me again and we grew further and further apart.

Years later, the second triad was... so beautiful that I can't even put words to it right now. I was very fragile and broken when these two took me in, and they helped me find my strength again. While they left the invitation open for a long-term primary position in our relationship, at the time I was unable to pull my own weight and I was unwilling to let them pull it for me until I could. In hindsight I realize that they would have been there for me through whatever I needed, but I just wasn't mature enough at the time to see it. I will always regret leaving because I have never felt more accepted, more loved, period.

So, being burned once by couple A damaged FormerUnicorn's chances for a "happy end" with couple B. A shame!

But it suggests that it CAN work... Doesn't it?