Why are you poly?

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:29 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:
joel the ornery wrote:my eyes glazed over after the 5th or 6th post.
Thinking of pottery, uhuh!

i wish.

Cabanasprings · Post by **Cabanasprings** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:28 pm

Can someone please hand me an Application? Thank you.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:24 pm

Ron wrote:
HughMungus wrote:........
What I'm talking about is people who are in more than one loving relationship at once (with consent), not just multiple consensual sexual relationships
So you're saying poly is the former? So do folk have to have sex to be poly?

Sorry to bring up an old chestnut, but it's a hobby horse of mine. :)

Seems to me that the distinction you're making isn't really relevant to the question but it is one I see all the time in the sex community.

I'm talking about people in a consensual, sexual, loving poly relationship, not just a sexual or romantic one. I'm not trying to define poly. I'm trying to understand how people accept the limits of the kind of poly relationship I'm talking about.

HughMungus wrote:............
Here's an example of what I diagrammed earlier. Le'ts say me and another guy are in love with a woman and we're both married to her. She loves us equally. It seems that with polyamory, you have to give up the guaranteed alone time OR you have to give up the guaranteed access.
Actually being poly just says that everyone is open to the wife having a relationship with both of you at the same time. That's it. You may or may not have to give up either of the two. Maybe one guy lives distantly and the relationship is all virtual, just by way of a universe of examples.

So you answered my question. This seems to be a huge disadvantage to polyamory vs. monamory (not sure if that was a word but it is now).

HughMungus wrote:........

Let's say we have an agreement where sometimes she spends exclusive time with him and sometimes she spends exlusive time with me and sometimes it's not exclusive for either of us and we all get to hang out together. What I'm wondering is if that is the case, and she and he are away somewhere and I'm not supposed to be interrupting, then there is one situation that would really suck for me.
And lots of others. No one likes to be alone, at times, but finding yourself unable to contact your partner during one of those moments isn't something that's either unique to, or inevitable within, poly. Your example runs far ahead of the relationship style and into the field of individual relationship tactics and behaviors, seems to me. Those behaviors, in turn, are as unique as the folk in the given relationship. Just like mono people have to deal with negotiating mutual behavior so too do poly folk. And when those discussion happen from a place of mutual positive regard and respect they can generally produce workable solutions for all.

Yes, I can't always express my love for my partner even in a monamorous relationship. However, any time that she *is* available for me to express my love, I can do so. With polyamory, I couldn't.

HughMungus wrote:........ In a monogamous relationship, there isn't that kind of limit. I can, theoretically, express my love for my partner no matter the time of day or where she is.
Not at all. I know countless monogamous folk who have regular "boys/girls" nights out for one or the other partner. It's considered bad form for the non-partying member of the relationship to contact the other during these times, often. Folk deal with it, it's not that big of a deal, seems to me. Every try to call your girl friend while she's off at at "bitch and stitch," with the ladies? ;)

ibid.

HughMungus wrote:...........
Basically, I don't understand how people, especially the legs of a triad, handle either exclusion or lack of one-on-one time with the pivot. With monogamy you get both.
Everyone spends some time together, and some time apart, regardless of their relationship style. Mono or poly both gotta talk and discover the mix of time to themselves and time together that works for them and it seems to me that if one can do so in a monogamous context the same skills apply to a non-monogamous one. The only difference between the two is the possibility that during some of that time apart one (or more) of the partners may be having sex. Um, well, maybe I should say that the only difference between the two is that in an open, honest, non-monogamous context one (or more) of the absent partners may be having sex that is approved of in the rules of the relationship. :)

Right. Rules that prevent either full access or prevent full exclusion.

So I discussed some of the disadvantages. What are some of the advantages of polyamory?

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:32 am

HughMungus wrote:....

I'm talking about people in a consensual, sexual, loving poly relationship, not just a sexual or romantic one.

And I'm not understanding the difference between your two groups. How can you differentiate between relationships that "consensual, sexual, loving (and) poly," vs. those that are "just ... sexual or romantic?"

....

HughMungus wrote:....

So you answered my question. This seems to be a huge disadvantage to polyamory vs. monamory (not sure if that was a word but it is now).

I did? You may have heard an answer, but I didn't give one. I tried to illustrate how I thought your question was broken. What's the disadvantage to poly that you see? Time management?

HughMungus wrote:..........
Yes, I can't always express my love for my partner even in a monamorous relationship. However, any time that she *is* available for me to express my love, I can do so. With polyamory, I couldn't.

Not at all. By definition. With both poly and mono when a partner is available for emotion expressions they are available. When they aren't, they aren't. That's what it means to be available. :)

It seems to me like you're trying to argue that with poly there will inherently be more time when a partner is unavailable for emotional expressions, when compared with monogamy. If there are only 24 hours in a day and those hours must be shared with more than one partner than those multiple partners must get less time per day than they would if they were monogamous and thus only dividing the day with one lover. Is that accurate?

HughMungus wrote:. ...ibid.

Sorry, again I'm not understanding you. I had just made the point that both monogamous and poly "couples," may schedule time alone, when the other should not contact the "alone," one for emotional expressions. I'm not sure how ibid applies or what you meant by it, wanna try again? Thanks.

HughMungus wrote:...........
So I discussed some of the disadvantages. What are some of the advantages of polyamory?

Relationship styles are not products with features that have universal disadvantages or advantages, seems to me. One person's feature is another's bug, eh? The root advantage of finding a relationship style that works for you is having a better life. Being a happier, more fulfilled, better acting, version of yourself. But to think that one can identify universal plus and negatives to monogamy vs. poly is to be missing the boat, I think. What matters is the cost/benefit for a given person, not the illusionary universal truth, seems to me. :)

Ron

BigCock · Post by **BigCock** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:22 am

dr.placebo wrote:You need to be open and honest about your intentions, you need to have agreement about the substantial issues, and you need to honor your agreements.

regynalonglank wrote:and it is good, whenever possible, to refrain from lying on the application.

Word.

R
E
S
P
E
C
T

Whelp · Post by **Whelp** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:43 am

I've had a couple of poly relationships. They're hard work. I've had quite a few monogamous relationships. They're also hard work.

Yes, in a poly relationship, you face the possibility of having to share your partner's time with other people. However, it's usually a lot less of a split than you probably imagine, and (in my opinion) usually much less of a split than most couples face once they become parents.

Poly relationships aren't universally right or wrong. For some people, they work very, very well. Some people can't handle them. They're the same as monogamy, in that regard. Personally, I'm easy on the matter; I can be in a poly or mono relationship, and not feel cheated. I lean towards poly, but most of the partners that I've had don't, and I'd rather be with them and monogamous than not with them and poly. That way of thinking doesn't work for everyone, but it's suited me just fine.

tisha2 · Post by **tisha2** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:27 am

Rob the Wop wrote: Wait a second...

If you profess a virtual desire to boink someone else while staring at their naughty bits, yet have said this to more than one person on the Eplaya- does that make you E-poly?

nah. yer just an E-slut.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:28 pm

tisha2 wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote: Wait a second...

If you profess a virtual desire to boink someone else while staring at their naughty bits, yet have said this to more than one person on the Eplaya- does that make you E-poly?
nah. yer just an E-slut.

Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but you're not getting a dime extra for improvisation.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:59 am

Ron wrote:Relationship styles are not products with features that have universal disadvantages or advantages, seems to me. One person's feature is another's bug, eh? The root advantage of finding a relationship style that works for you is having a better life. Being a happier, more fulfilled, better acting, version of yourself. But to think that one can identify universal plus and negatives to monogamy vs. poly is to be missing the boat, I think. What matters is the cost/benefit for a given person, not the illusionary universal truth, seems to me.

whelp wrote:Poly relationships aren't universally right or wrong. For some people, they work very, very well. Some people can't handle them. They're the same as monogamy, in that regard. Personally, I'm easy on the matter; I can be in a poly or mono relationship, and not feel cheated. I lean towards poly, but most of the partners that I've had don't, and I'd rather be with them and monogamous than not with them and poly. That way of thinking doesn't work for everyone, but it's suited me just fine.

Wise words.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:39 pm

Ron wrote:I had just made the point that both monogamous and poly "couples," may schedule time alone, when the other should not contact the "alone," one for emotional expressions.

Yes, but in a monoamorous relationship, there is no other equal emotional/romantic priority to deal with. In other words, in monoamory, there are two partners and one relationship of that type. In polyamory, there is more than one of that type of relationship and they have conflicting needs/desires.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:27 pm

i believe i am giving up attempts at mongamous relationships.

they haven't worked for me in the past, so something different should be attempted.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:48 pm

Hugh, I think one problem that's occurring here is that you're referring to a specific type of polyamorous relationship--one in which there is a central party(the wiki example you gave calls this a 'hinge').

In that case you have two seperate relationships that exist at the same time. In all fairness, I cannot see how that can be called polyamory. The 'hinge' person is engaged in two monamorous relationships, not a single polyamorous relationship. This structure is the basic one seen in Mormon style polygamy.

And the problems with this type of 'polyamory' are well documented.

A real polyamorous relationship has all the partners in love with each other--physically as well as emotionally.

In that case the 'alone time' you speak of doesn't arise--all members together constitute being 'alone' with each other. Under those circumstances a missing member would cause upset to the whole.

I have friends who are a 'triangle', they've been together for over twelve years. One has a position in which travel is difficult, so the other two often find themselves traveling alone--and that's how they act. Like one member of a strong monamorous relationship who has to be without the one they love. They call home constantly, chatting and filling in their third, and wishing that they were all together.

When comparing, it's best to compare like to like--the 'V' type is a wholly different type of relationship that a monoamorous relationship and cannot, because of vast structural differences, be an adequate comparison

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:16 pm

Because I just don't get enough drama in my life without it. </sarcasm>

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:41 pm

geekster wrote:Because I just don't get enough drama in my life without it. </sarcasm>

being repelled by drama is the justification for my forthcoming celibacy,

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:15 pm

shit Joel, I don't like the sound of that. Are you going to the burn this year?

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:24 pm

cowboyangel wrote:shit Joel, I don't like the sound of that. Are you going to the burn this year?

nope, lack of funds/time.
being forced out of the house.
renting a studio space.
going to live really spartan.
going to make pottery.
going to keep a close eye on the 16 year old to keep him straight.
going to love his mother from afar and make art.
going to maintain some level of insobriety, yet within limits.
going to be autonomous (sp?) again

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:36 pm

HughMungus wrote:Yes, but in a monoamorous relationship, there is no other equal emotional/romantic priority to deal with. In other words, in monoamory, there are two partners and one relationship of that type. In polyamory, there is more than one of that type of relationship and they have conflicting needs/desires.

If, "of that type," you mean sexual then I'd have to agree with you. It's true that by having more than one sexual relationship folk may find themselves in a situation where the needs of one of those relationships come in conflict with the needs of another of those. However, I think that it is only true on a sexual level as monogamous marriages have to deal with conflicting emotional pulls all the time.

The emotional connections between healthy mothers and daughters is something that monogamous men are famous for complaining about. "Do you have to tell your Mother *everything* about us?" "Why is she visiting again, so soon?" And so on. All common, prototypical if by no means universal, examples of conflicting strong emotional connections in a monogamous situation. And heterosexual women are similarly famous for complaining about how their men can be more emotionally available/spend too much time with their friends, cars, work buddies and so on. All this without even bringing up children and what happens when we become parents. Ooof, talk about conflicting strong emotional relationships.

So I don't buy the idea that non-monogamous lovers inherently face a problem in the number of emotional connections going on. But, by definition, they do face the possibility of more conflicts in sexual needs, when compared with monogamous folk. Only poly folk have "fluid/condom circles," by way of one example. Now I don't really see this as an inherent disadvantage to poly, but there it is. It is a feature of having multiple sexual partners, true enough....

Ron

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:38 pm

lurker wrote:....
A real polyamorous relationship has all the partners in love with each other--physically as well as emotionally.....

Who made you arbiter of what is and isn't a real poly relationship?

Ron

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:40 pm

Ron, some day, we need to have drinks, dinner and a long talk. but i aint kissin' ya. joel

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:46 pm

Good thing as the beard can be bristly. And, you might want to consider taking your life changes one at a time. Try giving up monogamy first. If that goes well, then consider celibacy. Doing both at the the same time might be a bit much. I mean, come one, they even encourage caffeine and tobacco at AA, for crying out loud. :)

Ron

PS Hope all goes well and I offer both my congratulations and condolences for the end of your relationship, in whatever proportion is most appropriate. Get better quick.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:21 am

Who made you arbiter of what is and isn't a real poly relationship?

Amen, brother!

LOL ... one thing I have learned is that there is always the Poly Politik who seems to have their "purity tests" ready and will vet what is and what is not "real" poly. I suppose one has "arrived" when they really don't require the validation of "the community" any longer. It's all angels dancing on pins to me. One thing I am certain of is that it does no good at all to be all evangelical about it. Unless, that is, one is somehow attempting to gain personal validation for their own choice by seeing if they can get someone else to buy it. Whatever. One thing I have learned as I have gotten older is to shed labels and not feel guilty about it. I am me. Polyamory to me is simply a human phenomenon ... not sure I am all that interested in making it a primary hobby.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:42 pm

Perhaps I should have put 'real' in quotes...

Simultaneous monamory can involve multiple people, and the 'hinge' person can be said to love all of them, but there is no actual 'poly' going on. Poly refers to 'many' If I am with a single partner, I am with a single partner. I can call myself whatever I want, but in the end, I'm still with a single partner.

Which is 'mono'.

If I engage with a second single partner, it's the same situation.

Properly defined, it's simultaneous monamory--I'm not speaking of politics, or personal feelings on the matter, I'm simply stating the precise nature of what's happening. The mechanics of it, if you will.

In fact, this described situation is incredibly common, it is a human 'norm', a situation that most men would feel comfortable with.

I am aware that it is often included in the definition of polyamory, but some definitions I've seen are so broad as to render the term meaningless

Simultaneous monamory can be engaged in without partners being aware of each other, while the 'hinge' person thinks of themself as polyamorous.

Is it though?

I would think, to actually constitute polyamory, all partners must be aware of all others and consent to the nature of the relationship. In that case, a simultaneous monamory situation could be justifiably considered a type of polyamory.

But I would still suggest that a 'true' polyamourous relationship consists of three or more intimately involved individuals

And, Ron, Geekster, I am not trying to be the arbiter of poly 'truth', I am merely making observations.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:54 pm

lurker wrote:Hugh, I think one problem that's occurring here is that you're referring to a specific type of polyamorous relationship--one in which there is a central party(the wiki example you gave calls this a 'hinge').

In that case you have two seperate relationships that exist at the same time. In all fairness, I cannot see how that can be called polyamory. The 'hinge' person is engaged in two monamorous relationships, not a single polyamorous relationship. This structure is the basic one seen in Mormon style polygamy.

And the problems with this type of 'polyamory' are well documented.

A real polyamorous relationship has all the partners in love with each other--physically as well as emotionally.

In that case the 'alone time' you speak of doesn't arise--all members together constitute being 'alone' with each other. Under those circumstances a missing member would cause upset to the whole.

I have friends who are a 'triangle', they've been together for over twelve years. One has a position in which travel is difficult, so the other two often find themselves traveling alone--and that's how they act. Like one member of a strong monamorous relationship who has to be without the one they love. They call home constantly, chatting and filling in their third, and wishing that they were all together.

When comparing, it's best to compare like to like--the 'V' type is a wholly different type of relationship that a monoamorous relationship and cannot, because of vast structural differences, be an adequate comparison

Oh thanks. Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Can't remember if I mentioned it so long ago but what sparked the question was meeting three poly hinges at our regional. So yeah, I guess you can't compare monogamy and V-style polyamory.

By the way, not knocking anyone's lifestyle. Just trying to understand.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:05 pm

Ron wrote:
HughMungus wrote:Yes, but in a monoamorous relationship, there is no other equal emotional/romantic priority to deal with. In other words, in monoamory, there are two partners and one relationship of that type. In polyamory, there is more than one of that type of relationship and they have conflicting needs/desires.
If, "of that type," you mean sexual then I'd have to agree with you.

I'm talking about romanitc, loving relationships, not platonic loving relationships.

All of my best friends but one are couples. We all love each other but we are not romantically involved so there are no conflicts between myself and either spouse, ever (I mean romantically; what's interesting is that I've learned that as a friend, I have to consciously avoid becoming too emotionally involved with either spouse).

gyro · Post by **gyro** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:10 pm

Polyamory makes a lot more sense if you don't try to analyse it by using terminology more appropriate to monogamy.

Platonic/romantic/sexual/professional/binary/breeding pair!?! Labelling relationships prior to understanding them will only restrict your understanding of the whole.

Human society exists because we are better at relationships than almost all other animals.....

Consider the thought that being in a relationship of any kind is a way of getting your needs met and of meeting the needs of another. You have a relationships with your lover, your children, your coffee server, your friends from BM. Not one of those relationship are the same, there is a certain amount of love existing in each one, (yes, flame me for suggesting that perhaps even commerce is a form of love...but isn't there a tiny amount of love sparked when you get your half caff/espresso/double latte addiction served promptly without hassle?)

So say that wild raver party sex satisfaction is one of your needs, and calm tantric loving on the beach is another.

In monamory, would it mean that both needs can only be served for you by ONE person?

That seems monoamory is asking a bit much of that one person. And is probably why people don't always get their needs met in mono relationships, and get frustrated/angry/bitter/etc.

A big advantage of a polyamorous approach to relationships is that you don't lock any doors to having your needs met.

No doubt, it is more complicated.....honesty about your needs and feelings must be absolute. Fear can't linger around, jealousy has to go as well. Getting your needs met becomes your responsibility, not your lover's.

Sadly, IMHO the problem is that after 2000 years or so of dogma, our society has no training to prepare us for opening up to love in that way.

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:02 pm

lurker wrote:Perhaps I should have put 'real' in quotes...

Simultaneous monamory can involve multiple people, and the 'hinge' person can be said to love all of them, but there is no actual 'poly' going on.

There isn't? Again, says who? When the universe puts a "Poly Police," badge on your chest you get to sat things like that. Short of such endowment, you're opinion isn't any better than anyone else's, seems to me.

lurker wrote: Poly refers to 'many' If I am with a single partner, I am with a single partner. I can call myself whatever I want, but in the end, I'm still with a single partner. ... Which is 'mono'.

So diads that are open to adding members, but that currently feature folk who are, "with a single partner," aren't poly? What are folk who aren't in any relationship at all, but are open to joining the next puppie pile they stumble across?

lurker wrote: Properly defined, it's simultaneous monamory--I'm not speaking of politics, or personal feelings on the matter, I'm simply stating the precise nature of what's happening. The mechanics of it, if you will.

Actually you are talking about personal feelings, yours. What makes your , "properly defined," any better than mine, by way illustrating my point. I tend to define ploy as a specific type of non-monogamy where all participants of the simultaneous sexual relationships are aware of each other. So that afore mentioned 'V,' could, in fact, properly speaking be poly using my terms. So why are yours better than mine?

Seems to me that all of our definitions are equally arbitrary. Including my own. Until you get to the point of truly meaningless definitions (the ones that don't require sex and apply equally well to lovers and family members/relations are one example I'd agree with you on of that) they're all one. And setting oneself up as the arbiter of what is and isn't a "proper," definition of poly takes a dose of ego I don't have.

This reminds me of the woman who I knew who called herself a lesbian and slept almost exclusively with men. While the label she used didn't have the meaning many may have expected, it did have meaning for her and learning about that was a great experience for me. No one gets to own the language, seems to me, and one person's "properly defined," is the next's pile of horse puckies and both folk can be equally correct, seems to me.

lurker wrote:....

But I would still suggest that a 'true' polyamourous relationship consists of three or more intimately involved individuals

And, Ron, Geekster, I am not trying to be the arbiter of poly 'truth', I am merely making observations.

OK, do I really need to point out the conflict between those two sentences ? :)

Ron

tisha2 · Post by **tisha2** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:56 pm

no...no, you don't.

Das Bus · Post by **Das Bus** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:58 am

Thank You HughMungus for bringing up this topic. I read VERY little on the eplaya anymore, but I thought your thread might be worth a look.

And Thank You to all you posters. You've given me alot of things to think about.

But, alas, as some older members of the eplaya may remember, I went through a very hard time when I found out my husband was "in love" with my best friend. He attempted to make it up to me, and said he no longer had feelings for her. But here we are again.... the feelings never went away, and now he says it's just the way he's 'wired'.

He wants a poly relationship with the three of us. He says that loving her takes nothing away from me. But I don't see it that way.

Now, I don't have a problem with sex for fun (as past Meet & Greets have shown!), but I do have a problem with emotional attachments. I mean, WTF? I thought WE were a team! I thought WE were the most important! It's US against the world!!!

And I think I could actually deal with the emotional attachments, if I didn't think that if the opportunity presented itself, that he would chose her over me. Afterall, I'm an insane bitch, and she's a helpless kitten! (I know, I shouldn't say that - but I'm an eBitch)

So all you experts out there - what do you do when one person wants to be poly and the other one is scared/worried/unsure?

Oh, and BTW: if any of you smartass mother fuckers make fun of me for this post, I will sooooooooooo kick your ass at the Meet & Greet! ; )

Post by **AntiM** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:42 am

But, uh, what if we'd delight in your special ass-kicking?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:49 am

Das Bus, what you say makes sense. It's not for everyone and it's not a sort of back door bigamy/polygamy where Mr. gets what he wants without having to take care of Mrs.'s needs. It worked with us for whatever reason, but I honestly think that it's always going to be a minority sexuality/lovestyle because there are difficulties. It's never going to go away completely, because not everyone is monogamous.
Remember--sexual jelously is a leading cause of murder and the kids in tradition polygamous families have a lower chance of growing up.
Hold true to yourself. And be honest with yourself.