Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-14-2011, 09:31 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNeacail View Post
I don't see that taking someone as a lover negates the ability to build a friendship. However, I would never assume they are a good fit for the family until a friendship has been built. I may be in the minority, but until a friendship has been formed, they shouldn't even be introduced to the family (ie. children) at all. In fact the introductions should start with the other adult family memebers and the decission of when it's time to make further introductions should be a mutal decission.
I don't think it negates the possibility that they could be friends. I know they could-I'm friends with all of my.... ex-playmates.

But-they aren't ever going to be "family"..

I do happen to agree with you (as well you know I'm sure by now)...

that "newbies" should not be brought into the circle with my children until they are established friends.
There's got to be a safety net for my kiddos.




Anyway-it is VERY interesting hearing all of the different ideas!


For me, the past being what it is, if someone is going to be considered as a long term partner

it's

Attraction-Friend-Love-Lover
or
Friend-attraction-love-lover


I have to agree with MG, if there isn't attraction-the friendship won't go any further.
But I can be attracted, VERY VERY attracted and not take it past friendship.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-14-2011, 09:34 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
So glad I'm childfree and don't need to worry about such things. I only answer to myself!
See, I'm wondering if this might not be a significant difference.

If my kids were grown and not at home, or I didn't have any, my attitude would be more "lenient" in regards to having...... short term partners (for lack of a better term).

But, I don't have the money to entertain elsewhere and I can't take those risks with my kiddos. You know?

I do admit that there are times I think it would be nice. But-alas, it's not that way.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-14-2011, 09:45 PM
Seasnail's Avatar
Seasnail Seasnail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingRadiance View Post
See, I'm wondering if this might not be a significant difference.

If my kids were grown and not at home, or I didn't have any, my attitude would be more "lenient" in regards to having...... short term partners (for lack of a better term).

But, I don't have the money to entertain elsewhere and I can't take those risks with my kiddos. You know?

I do admit that there are times I think it would be nice. But-alas, it's not that way.
I don't think it's only kids that face that risk, either. One thing I've learned is that for me, a partner's lover becomes important in my life, whether I plan it or not. I wouldn't be able to handle a high turnover in OSO's either, in the same way it's not really good for kids. I agree with waiting until there's relationship before becoming lovers.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-14-2011, 09:46 PM
darksilence darksilence is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 9
Default

I find that i move very quickly into and out of relationships. i'm happy being single and in a relationship(s) but its one or the other for me. i'm definitely a Attraction > lovers > love > friends... but i'm also very sexually motivated.

dunno if its because i'm an aries and i tend to be either all in or all out but i find the slow burn build up to lovers agonizing and in some cases a complete turn off.

i am amazed by the restraint of those who can maintain a relationship in that way. it must take so much work!

i was so luck to find my current partners, they're both very slow paced people who tend to think about things a lot/too much before doing them and my impulsive (sometimes childishly so) nature balances that out pretty well.
__________________
"A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for. Sail out to sea and do new things" - Grace Hopper, one of the first computer programmers and all around amazing woman. she coined the term "debugging" for fixing computer errors after finding a moth in one of her machines. one of my personal heros.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-14-2011, 09:48 PM
Morningglory629's Avatar
Morningglory629 Morningglory629 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingRadiance View Post
I

But I can be attracted, VERY VERY attracted and not take it past friendship.
YEP!

Quote:
I don't see that taking someone as a lover negates the ability to build a friendship. However, I would never assume they are a good fit for the family until a friendship has been built. I may be in the minority, but until a friendship has been formed, they shouldn't even be introduced to the family (ie. children) at all. In fact the introductions should start with the other adult family memebers and the decission of when it's time to make further introductions should be a mutal decission.
I guess my hesitance in taking a lover for just sex is based on the fact that when I invite someone into my life, the intent is never for that to be temporary. If you are my lover, I have already invested myself in you. As far as intros into the family...you cannot possibly be considered a friend if you cannot be part of my whole life. But that is me. I expect my lover to have some relationships with my friends and family, especially my children. They are the most important people in my life, why should there be any investment in being lovers if I have to keep you from my children for whatever reason? I am so happy when 2Rings interacts with my family. I am grateful that my husband is able to handle that interraction, but it was always something that would happen because he is part of my life, and whether or not my children or family or friends like him is up to them, but know him absolutely a must. I am not investing my energy into anything that I view as temporary, nor am I hiding him or ashamed of our relationship. I understand waiting for SOs being okay with intros but it is an eventual interaction, so IMO dragging it out too long just causes anxiety and really sets one up for some backlash from the "others" in your life. For example, if I had a secret relationship for two years with someone my husband, children, parents, siblings and close friends never heard of...it would be hard for them because they would feel deceived. If they met and knew of the interactions between my lover and I over the course of the relationship, coming out to them as more than Just Friends would be less of a blow. Of course that is my opinion. Not true for everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-14-2011, 10:15 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,437
Default

I hear you MG.

I wouldn't have a "secret" relationship.

But-for example, there are a couple guys at a local Karaoke bar that I enjoy flirting with.

I was at the grocery store where one of them works. I spoke briefly with him and it was friendly. He invited me to go out that Friday. I was upfront that IF Maca/GG wanted to go WE might show up, but there wasn't a chance that I would be showing up alone.

I would be totally willing to get to know these guys better. But, at no point have I ever kept their existence a secret. Both Maca and GG know they exist, who they are, where they work and that I find them attractive.

However, that does NOT equate to them meeting my kids.


If someone hasn't built a level of trust with me based on knowing THEM as a person-not on the fact that we both find each other to be sexually stimulating, they aren't coming to meet my kids.


At the same time, if someone doesn't know Maca and GG peripherally (meaning having met, said hello and know who these two men are to ME), they aren't going to be getting to know me better anyway.

I'm just very strict that this family is my priority. I'm TOTALLY game to increase the size of the family, but I'm not ok with exchanging players if you know what I mean.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-14-2011, 10:35 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morningglory629 View Post
I guess my hesitance in taking a lover for just sex is based on the fact that when I invite someone into my life, the intent is never for that to be temporary. If you are my lover, I have already invested myself in you.
A relationship that starts out or remains mostly sexual isn't necessarily always temporary, short-lived, or shallow. Its dynamic simply meets a particular need.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post on hierarchy in polyamory:
solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-14-2011, 10:39 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
A relationship that starts out or remains mostly sexual isn't necessarily always temporary, short-lived, or shallow. Its dynamic simply meets a particular need.
I know that.

I had a lover for 4-6 years who was almost completely sexual. We got along well, but we were way way too busy in our individual lives for much more than that-and we had GREAT sexual chemistry.

At the same time, he wasn't part of my family.

I also had a beloved part of my family step backward into a role that was primarily sexual. Nothing about her was ever temporary, short-lived or shallow to me. Though the relationship ended, my love, adoration and respect for her did not, will not.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-14-2011, 10:41 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,437
Default

Still,

It's much more painful for me after having invested my love into a relationship-when it ends up being temporary for the other person.

Having her not in my life leaves an empty place. It's been.... fucking almost 20 years. It's not a new loss. But the emptiness, it's still there.


Much less empty (not necessarily less painful) if the person with whom I get involved remains a significant part of my life. Which I think is more of what MG is trying to get to.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-14-2011, 10:43 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,423
Default

I understand that the idea of "family," and whether or not a partner qualifies for being considered a part of that family, is very sacred to you. I guess I don't have the same attachment to the idea of family that you do.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post on hierarchy in polyamory:
solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
friendship, love, lovers, romance, timeframes

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 05:22 PM.