Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Poly Relationships Corner

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-30-2011, 03:52 PM
serialmonogamist serialmonogamist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bella123456 View Post
Cultures do change over time, and individuals do have the power to change "culture". It's certainly not universal though...there's lots of places in the world where it is much, much, harder to change cultural values and biases...particularly for females, who continue to suffer within many cultures.
Not to mention the fact that acting outside cultural values can be pretty dangerous in some cultures....particularly for women. I don't feel we can talk about changing culture in general terms...as there are thousands of cultures around the world..each with their own pitfalls and strengths..
Sometimes changing culture is as simple (or difficult) as individual migration. The problem is that the 'free-est' cultures are often also the most strongly protected against migration. I'm sure there's a social-cultural logic to that but that's a topic for another discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-02-2011, 10:40 AM
BlackUnicorn's Avatar
BlackUnicorn BlackUnicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 906
Default Musings

Yay for resurrections!

Being too young to have participated in the first round(s) of this thread, I'll seize the opportunity to muse right now.

I started out as solo poly, looking for a triad on a secondary basis with the possibility of moving "up in the hierarchy" or living together later. I didn't really desire a primary connection before I formed a secondary one with a man who already had his primary and lived far far away besides. Or maybe primary is the wrong word here - what I didn't want was to be the bitter and neglected, and thought (somewhat incorrectly) that I could fill the void of one relationship with another.

Primary thing happened really accidentally for me (dating one guy -> threesome with a girl he used to date -> break-up with the guy -> one-on-one dates with the girl -> OMG she's nice -> OMG we're a couple now -> OMG let's move in together ). I don't really resonate with the whole opening up and transition from mono to poly thing, either. What about people who started out their primary/whatever relationship with no period of monogamy in the beginning? Who got into an open relationship from the start, having first dated non-monogamously?

I have a very firm idea of not meddling with her connections, whatever they may be. She went; "But of course you need to meddle if my other relationships are affecting our relationship in a negative way!". I don't know what to make of this. Is there a hierachy where, if either feels another connection affects the primary relationship in the wrong way, they have veto rights (not to necessarily end the secondary relationship, but to demand it take a back seat)? Or is the spirit of true openness one where you take what you are offered from the "primary" relationship, and its exclusivity or uniqueness is no more worth protecting than that of any other connection?

Steering happily off-topic here. But I feel it's a deeper issue of are we two solo poly individuals who have come together for now or are we something more, an institution, a couple now?
__________________
Me: bi female in my twenties
Dating: Moonlightrunner
Metamour: Windflower

Last edited by BlackUnicorn; 08-02-2011 at 10:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-02-2011, 06:37 PM
MsKittie MsKittie is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Augusta, Ga orginally from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Him from District of Columbia.
Posts: 3
Default

"you need to meddle if my other relationships are affecting our relationship in a negative way"


I agree with her. Meddling in the sense of speaking up, making your feelings, concerns known, and if need be put your foot down.

Not sure if your considered a primary, if you are; even more reason to state your feelings on everything.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-02-2011, 06:53 PM
MsKittie MsKittie is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Augusta, Ga orginally from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Him from District of Columbia.
Posts: 3
Wink

It can happen. Perhaps, not very often but it does. We are in the exact scenario you long for. We didn't set out looking for a set scenario. We actually thought we'd up up in a vee, but the gentleman I ended up dating was already in a 10 year poly relationship with his partner..who *her) had yet another (poly)partner when they started( they are now since gone) So, they were well estblished poly couple who themselves only thought theyd be Vee also. Ironic how life turns out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eklctc View Post
Hi, nycindie. I consider myself a solo poly person. If I had to define my current relationship type, it would be viewed as a vee with me and the wife of my partner being close to the very top of the legs but I don't choose to label many things. I am in a relationship with a married man whose wife is fully aware. I, like you, am not interested in getting married, as it is defined in this society,(I feel it is unfair to your partners if you know you live a multi lifestyle) unless there comes a time where I can marry more than one person. My kids are 17 and 11 (teen lives with me) so I am not interested in having anymore. I, too, enjoy my own personal space and, though, I would consider investing in a single place with my partners (whenever that becomes plural), I am also just as content living separately.

Currently, my ideal relationship would probably consist of four people. I, along with my two male partners, would be primary in each other's lives (men don't necessarily have to be primary to each other but I would definitely condone it) and my one female partner would be secondary. I would have regular interaction with both my male partners and probably weekly to biweekly interaction with my female partner who may or may not be permanently attached outside of our relationship and may or may not regularly interact with one of my male primaries. This committed poly quad would also have extended boundaries where we are open to sexual interaction with others but reserve our emotional attachments to each other. Yea...I know it sounds like a fairytale.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-02-2011, 06:57 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,121
Default Solo Polyamorists

Staying on the topic of solo poly people and their ideals...

I just did a cursory look around the 'net and it seems that a person practicing solo poly is generally understood to be someone who does not have primary partners, or for whom all partners are equally important, and does not cohabit with them. I found these two quotes by Tristan Taormino, (her book Opening Up is where I first found the term):

"In American culture, monogamy isn’t the only norm when it comes to relationships; it’s expected that everyone wants to and should be part of a couple. The fact of the matter is that some people who identify as non-monogamous or polyamorous prefer not to be in a “partnered” relationship, however they define that for themselves. In general, people who practice solo polyamory may date and have non-primary partners, but they don’t want to co-habit, mingle finances and resources, raise children, or make important life decisions with a partner."
and:

"Just as polyamory flies in the face of the traditional pairing model, choosing to be a non-primary partner contradicts all the rhetoric we learn about finding "the one," making a commitment, and being the most important person in someone's life. Choosing to be farther down on the food chain immediately has people thinking you have commitment issues, low self-esteem, or something else wrong with you. In fact, these critiques echo comments often made about the "mistress" in a cheating relationship, but the difference here is a big one: choice. While the mistress may dream of or even be promised that she'll become Girl Number One, the non-primary person knows where he or she stands in someone's life and is content there. The non-primary folks I know either don't want to be anyone's primary because of other priorities in their life or, like Sarah, want multiple relationships, some of which are with people who already have a primary partner.

For some folks, there is no food chain: They eschew the concept of primary/non-primary altogether because they don't believe in the hierarchy it implies. "I'm in two relationships, and I consider them both equally important," says Cate, a San Francisco–based filmmaker. "A mother doesn't consider one of her children to be the primary child, does she?" Sarah counters, "Eventually someone has to be on top because we will be put in a position where we have to choose where our energy is going to go. If [people who reject a hierarchical model] can make that work for them, it's great. In my world, at some point you have to decide." Penny says, "We think of each relationship as different. I don't know if non-primary is the word I would use, but there is no other word, so it's like the default." "
Thoughts?
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 08-02-2011 at 07:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-04-2011, 03:35 PM
BlackUnicorn's Avatar
BlackUnicorn BlackUnicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
"I'm in two relationships, and I consider them both equally important," says Cate, a San Francisco–based filmmaker. "A mother doesn't consider one of her children to be the primary child, does she?" Sarah counters, "Eventually someone has to be on top because we will be put in a position where we have to choose where our energy is going to go. If [people who reject a hierarchical model] can make that work for them, it's great. In my world, at some point you have to decide." Penny says, "We think of each relationship as different. I don't know if non-primary is the word I would use, but there is no other word, so it's like the default."
Thoughts?
I can imagine a situation where one of the siblings would have a serious and permanent health condition or other special needs, and they would claim a large part of the parents' energy and time, maybe leaving the other kids feeling a bit neglected at times. But that could hardly be framed as having a "primary" kid.

To stretch the kid metaphor a bit wider, maybe you could view your partners not on a hierarchy basis but as having different needs for the type and amount of interaction with you, where some would be content with biweekly dates with no overnights and others would want to wake up next to you on as many mornings as possible?
__________________
Me: bi female in my twenties
Dating: Moonlightrunner
Metamour: Windflower
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-04-2011, 05:06 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackUnicorn View Post
. . . maybe you could view your partners not on a hierarchy basis but as having different needs for the type and amount of interaction with you . . .
Well, of course people have differing needs. I think that only stands to reason.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-08-2011, 08:12 AM
BlackUnicorn's Avatar
BlackUnicorn BlackUnicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Well, of course people have differing needs. I think that only stands to reason.
The whole idea of solo poly people who are happy to remain so sort of defies the idea that absolutely everyone needs a steady primary partner to cohabit with.
__________________
Me: bi female in my twenties
Dating: Moonlightrunner
Metamour: Windflower
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-08-2011, 08:15 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,121
Default

Yep, that's the point! At least, for me it is.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-08-2011, 07:13 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,121
Default

I hope more unattached, solo poly people share on this thread! There comes a saturation point for me, every now and then, where I can't read anymore about married couples opening up their relationship. Not that I can't empathize or offer helpful feedback, but I need to hear more from others whose situations are closer to mine and to whom I can relate a little more.

So, here's a shout-out to solo poly peeps!

What has been your experience in trying to meet potential partners? How separately do you keep your relationships? What do you see are the biggest benefits from being solo and, if applicable, not having designations of primary, secondary, etc.?
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dating dynamics, ideals, independence, solo, solo poly

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 02:29 AM.