Tracer Graves

Would you like us to send you some pictures then?

Tracer Graves

Well, emotions aren't rational so I dunno. I can't speak beyond my experience, but we know of several healthy happy poly relationships that have lasted quite a while. I do agree with you that a lot of people may be okay with poly in theory, but the reality doesn't work out so well. But it seems to me that you really have to be in the right place mentally to sort out your emotions in a way that actually puts it all in the proper perspective. I admit that I've had my share of jealous responses, just because I was stretching my comfort zone. But I think we've proven to each other that we both have had each other's best interests at heart the whole time and that we have not stopped caring fully for one another. I would even argue it's made us appreciate each other more.

That may be weird to some people, but oh well.

ETA- I think that what happens is that seeing your partner with somebody else can make you feel replaceable. So you have to be sure that your partner doesn't want to have an open relationship because they feel trapped. You HAVE to be very strong in your actual relationship and you can't have an overdeveloped sense of ownership either.

Asher Bertrand

Real quick and then I have to go for the evening. I'm speaking from my point of view here, so if I state something I'm not saying it's gospel truth, but this is how I see it.

First, it seems cruel to me. You are putting your own want of a thrill ahead of the very likely pain it will cause your partner. And you are possibly short-changing the third (fourth, whatever) person as well, who doesn't get to be a primary partner if that is what he or she wants. To say that none of that matters as much as my own want to get it on with someone new is horribly selfish, insensitive and immature to me.

Second, it is rife with drama. Like I said, I've not seen any of these arrangements work out well. What I have seen are screaming matches, moms taking off with a baby on a Greyhound bus to go meet a lover across the country without telling the husband, tears, massive drinking, more tears and bitterness.

Third, you are perhaps cheating yourself out of the chance to have a deep one-on-one relationship wherein you and your partner are each other's main support. The best line on marriage I ever heard is that in marriage, you sacrifice "you" on the altar of "us." But that "us" is diminished when you turn away to chase after a different "us."

I sure don't mean to say that monogamy is a wonderous land with root beer waterfalls and gum drop pebbles, where every day is rainbows and butterflies landing on the puffy white tail of a spotted fawn. LOL. I might kill myself if it were... but you know what I mean. It's not. Yes, there has been a whole lot of drama in monogamous relationships too, and a great many fail, but I have seen some of those work.

__________________

Tracer Graves

At least for us, we could care less about thrills. Same for the successful poly relationships we know of. If you're in it for the thrills, chances are you're barely mature enough to handle one serious relationship, let alone multiple. Sure, some 'thrills' may come along here and there, but I personally view my life as one big learning experience so it's not really my M.O. here.

Are these people you know polyamorous or swingers? Sounds like these people are going to have troubled relationships no matter what the arrangements are. <edit>btw, if you deal with strong emotions by drinking, then you probably aren't emotionally mature enough to handle poly</edit>

And I think you are perhaps cheating yourself out of having multiple deep and rewarding relationships. I cannot comprehend how my relationship with my wife could be any more deep and meaningful to me, so I guess I'm basically just going to blow off this idea as irrelevant to me.

mmm.... rootbeer waterfalls

Bard Jameson

I'd like to ask a serious question about poly relationships, as I have no experience either directly or observing - there has been some mention here of the"primary" relationship in a poly arrangement. It makes me curious.

It seems to me that the ultimate or perhaps "model" poly relationship would be a congress of equals. There would be no hierarchy. But the few things I have ever read or seen regarding such arrangements always seem to include some sort of hierarchical arrangement - a "primary" couple, or a "first wife" or "first husband". The label "primary" has been used here. If that is so (I don't know if it is), then it makes me question the arrangement, in this way:

1. While humans are social animals, both in general and in their intimate relationships, the structure of hierarchy always seems to come into play. There is almost always a "first" someone

2. If that is so, then what are the commitments to those further down on the "ladder"? If I have three wives, a first, second and third, then is my commitment any less to wife two or wife three than it is to wife one?

3. If the answer to point two is something like "Yes - the commitment to wife one is greater than that to wife two or three", then isn't such an arrangement merely a shadow form of monogamy? IOW - have I not chosen one over all others?

If the answer to point three is something like "Yes, there is one who is more secure in my relationship than the others", then how does one manage the need for security and commitment of those lower down the pecking order? If I was husband or wife three, I can imagine that my security/commitment/love/support could be felt as secondary, and despite any belief that I was "mature" enough to handle such an arrangement, I can certainly think that I would consider my position less tenable than that of husband/wife one.

I say this because monogamy is a signal to the partner, "You I place above all others". That arrangement is enforced by not entering into other relationships that match or nearly equal that prime relationship. But when you do enter into other relationships that match or nearly equal the prime, you are still saying one is above the others, and that can't create the same feeling of commitment for those "secondary" people.

I may not have explained my question well, as it is confusing to me. But I really would be interested in any attempts to answer.

__________________

Photogenix Flickr Stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34885797@N08/

Photogenix Blog - http://photogenixstudios.blogspot.com/

Fmeh

Monogamy is totally possible and it is my preferred relationship type.

__________________

Mocksoup Graves

Well, in my experience....secondary are what partners that do not have legal entanglements, are newer and do not have quite as much invested into the relationships are called. Often as a power over exchange rather than power with relationship dynamic from my own observations.

In an optimal relationship,all relationships are equal, but in reality sometimes that doesn't work that way. Either through living arrangements, children,simply having one's own 'room' or by choice.

One of my dearest friends is in a triad. Her and her 2 husbands. There is no primary or secondary or tertiary... what have you. Not a one of them fear being replaced. They have children, and they are committed to raising their children in a loving, healthy and stable environment.

There doesn't have to be a pecking order unless you make it it a pecking order.

__________________
Trout Slut Rating : Boobie UPDATED to a 7! WOOT!
You are marginally a slut, but still all lady, and you know exactly when to cross that line. Congratulations and shame on you! You are a slut, but only in the best, most empowering and beautiful definition of the word.
MockBlog
Plurk

Tracer Graves

As a qualifier, I don't like the terminology of 'primary' vs 'secondary'. I think of it more as established vs non-established.

So for the purpose of this post, primary equals established with long-term commitment. Effectively, this means the most long-standing, established partnerships are the primary concern but that there may be more than one partnership that can be considered 'primary'. Secondary status (to me) means that it's a new relationship and that the needs of the primary relationship(s) have to be maintained or the secondary relationship will not work.

Now, a 'secondary' relationship would still need the proper amount of time and bonding to become established to give it a fair shot. Some secondary relationships become established, others do not. Same as non-poly relationships. If all parties involved can interact happily in a mutually supportive matter and the chemistry is right, then the secondary partners can become integrated into the 'primary' relationship.

Now, this may not be fully in line with what you've read, Bard, but it seems to be the way things work out best, imo. BTW, nobody has actually made it to 'primary' status in our relationships, though there have been some situations where it was a possibility.

Surreal

I've seen a lot of poly relationships over the years and been poly myself. I've come to the conclusion that like the sexuality spectrum homo-bi-hetero, there is a sexual fidelity spectrum and some folks are naturally at the mono end and others at the poly end.

The pain I've seen has been where a mono partner has been dragged, coaxed or guilted into a poly relationship against their nature.

Also I don't think it's the poly relationship that determines the jealousy, but rather where people fall on that spectrum. I also don't think emotional maturity has anything to do with that inclination. Emotional maturity rather is what's required to make either type of relationship work.

__________________

Siggy

I have enough problems trying to please ONE woman and not shoot myself in the foot while simultaneously slamming my balls in a draw.

2? Are you fucking CRAZY?

Not only that - but good fucking luck trying to find 2 women that will simultaneously put up with my shit.

If it works for you - God bless.

I like to think I'm more like Unix

I can do one thing, and do it really well.

__________________
And as it was in the beginning, so too shall it be in the end. That bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by different names.

Bard Jameson

Thanks for all your thoughtful replies. Let me see if I can fine-tune my question based on those responses. Please forgive me cutting your quotes to the areas I want to specifically address.

While you say that at the end, it seems to me that it isn't just a matter of "making" a pecking order, but rather the natural outcome of what you describe before this statement. If one has entered into "legal entanglements" with spouse one ahead of spouse two or three, you seem to be saying that a natural "pecking order" has been created, not an arbitrary one.

So you admit, IIUC, that an "optimal" arrangement would be completely equal, but that it doesn't always work out that way. What I ask is, what do you do to give all parties to such an arrangement equal security/love/commitment, when it doesn't "work out that way"?

Your example of the triad begs the question - exactly HOW is such a completely equal relationship among three adult partners maintained, assuming that one started first and the second was added later? Unless they all three married at the same time (which I doubt, given American law), how did that triad establish absolute equality among the adult partners?

Agreed - we are not talking here about anyone being dragged or coerced into a poly relationship. We are considering only adults making informed choices. But while it is a truism that emotional maturity is needed to maintain a healthy mono relationship, let alone anything else, I am asking - Does it require a special level of maturity, above and beyond what we might call "normal" to maintain a healthy poly relationship? If so, is that level of "maturity" even possible, or at least probable?

Forgive me truncating your reply, Tracer, but I want to address what I think is your prime point. Call it "established" or call it "primary", but you are here admitting, IIUC, that the hierarchy exists. And this was the main thrust of my previous post.

Call it what you will, but "some are more equal than others". My main question here is, how do the people in a poly relationship, assuming a hierarchy, deal with the inevitable inequality? By simple or two-thirds majority vote? By consensus? Or is someone designated as a leader who makes a final decision?

A thought experiment to illustrate:

Man 1 is married to Woman 1 and Woman 2. Man 1 has fathered two children with Woman 1 and one child with Woman 2. Woman 1 is his "first wife". Woman 2 complains that she doesn't like how Woman 1 is teaching/training/raising her son. Woman 2 feels that Woman 1's teachings will damage her son irreparably. Woman 2 brings her concerns to Man 1. Woman 2 delivers an ultimatum: Either get Woman 1 off of my son, tell her to stop training him in X way, which I believe is harmful, or I will divorce this family."

Who is in charge here, or by what mechanism is a decision reached?

I am not being flippant. I just know from experience the difficulties of a monogamous relationship, and raising a single child in one, and it seems to me that the complications created by expanding that to a poly relationship are not expanded in a merely linear way - they must be logarithmic.

Bard Jameson

And BTW: I am totally with Siggy here. When I was young and dumb and full of cum, I was sure I could satisfy the needs, - all needs - of more than woman at once.

I have since been humbled

Ayu Sura

Bard, I have some friends who are in a three-way relationship - and they're expecting their first child. I'll observe and let you know how it goes.

I don't tend to pry into the mechanics of their relationship, but sometimes they mention things like "it's tuesday, it's K & A night", etc. I think they set up rules to help maintain some sort of balance. Also, I think they're planning to eventually remodel their home so they can all share a master bedroom, instead of rotating.

__________________
"You broke the rules! Now I pull out all your pubic hair!" - Tenacious D

Tracer Graves

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. There is a hierarchy, but that's between established, long-term relationships and non-established, new relationships. Once that new relationship changes over to a long-term commitment, then there is no longer a hierarchy. It is a group decision process. Everyone gets full benefits at that point.

Now, to get to your question, who is in charge in a monogamous relationship? What happens when 2 people don't see eye to eye? The answer will vary depending on each relationship. Same for poly. Speaking for myself, if you want to even bother with poly in a non-swinging sense, you're simply going to be limited to like-minded individuals to a large degree. I wouldn't get into a serious relationship with anyone who I couldn't make decisions with in a mutually respectful manner. This would not be any different regardless of whether we were mono or poly.

Anyway, I'm starting to feel like I'm sharing more than I'm comfortable with. Kind of exposed. Honestly, I don't really think about this issue very much on a day to day basis and I don't consider it anything particularly defining about me. I guess I just know that some people think of this as weird or creepy and I'm worried about being put in some sort of corresponding category because of this. That's actually the worst part of poly for me. I don't even like calling myself that, because I don't think it really divides me from everyone and I don't like being singled out as the odd one in a group. It's kind of intimidating and isolating.

Tracer Graves

Basically, I feel that people make a bigger deal out of the complications of having 3 or 4 people vs 2 people than there is to make. Sure there are lots of factors that come into play, but you just deal with them as they come. We don't need to stage every poly interaction and scenario as ethical dilemmas. You just communicate as honestly as possible and come to a decision.

Ann Launay

My opinion is, whatever works for you. It would make me miserable though.

__________________

Tracer Graves

Definitely. To each, his or her own.

Mocksoup Graves

I don't understand that whole "who's in charge" thing. If you are in a relationship, you need to respect the other person, and they should do the same for you. That's for 1 partner or 1999 partners. Without respect, there is no real relationship. Having power over someone isn't love. That's control. Wielding that power and forcing them to do what you want against their beliefs is wrong.

It isn't that hard to establish equality. You just have to want it.

A few poly families set up LLC for their financial and legal needs.

And just to mention,neither Tracer, nor I are searching for a partner to add to our family unit. Yes, I am dating someone and have been for the last year. But many states away and high demanding jobs, and medical issues... make visits few and far between. If something happens naturally, then so be it. But our focus is on our kids, their well being, and their educations. We want to help them to grow and make good decisions. Dating other people is on the back burner for us. We are perfectly happy with our own status quo.

Bard Jameson

Thanks to you all again for your thoughtful posts, and I am sorry if I pushed in such a way as to make you reveal more than you want. Let me just say this as my final point.

For us - and that is just us, and in no way do I mean this to denigrate any other relationship - but for us, whatever Atia wants, Atia gets (limited only by reality - physical, financial, logical)

What I am saying is that Atia is "in charge" of our relationship. By that I mean that I do everything that is humanly possible to provide her what she wants/needs. Finally, after many decades of trying to get what I want, deciding to serve her to the best of my ability is one of the most liberating decisions I ever made. It allowed me to get the focus off of ME and on to my beloved.

And maybe I am either old fashioned or un-evolved, but I can't imagine splitting that sort of attention between her and another. That is what led to my questions.

Thanks.

Surreal

I was in a triad with two other women for three years. I don't think we were any more mature than any other set of 20-somethings, but we had very strong shared interests that kept us bound together and a few basic ground rules for handling conflict. We eventually split when our jobs sent us to separate countries.

The downside to committed poly relationships is that all the risks of a regular 2-person relationship are there, but magnified by the number of people.

But that's also the upside - if the relationship works, you can bring a lot more financial leverage and emotional/physical security.

For example, with the three of us were together we had to negotiate 3 jobs worth of priorities.... but we also had 3 incomes to cover expenses.

Surreal

I don't think you're either - I think you're just naturally mostly monogamous. Know yourself

Aodhan McDunnough

There has been at least case of homosexual swan monogamy where they couldn't get the couple to separate even after providing females. LOL

As for 6% divorce rate? That's way below USA's iirc 50%.

Human monogamy is a choice, it's enforced by culture, education, and upbringing. Animal monogamy apparently isn't anywhere near as much a choice, as in others of their species don't force it.

ETA: In other words, the elements of sexuality and coupling in animals are similar to humans, but the statistics of those elements are way way different.

Serene S.

I really appreciate all of the information provided in this thread. It's helped me to understand the viewpoint of another lifestyle, which is never a bad thing, really. What you don't understand, you tend to fear or look down upon, and I wouldn't want to do that. I'm sorry if we made you feel uncomfortable at all, Tracer, but I thank you and Mock (and you, Surreal) for your thoughts, feelings and experiences on this subject.

It's still not something I would consider for myself, or in my relationship, but I think it's always good when people can be committed to each other and their family (whatever form that committment takes), respect each other, be mutually supportive and happy. That is something that is sometimes difficult to achieve in a relationship and I would never down someone who has found it in their's.

Bard Jameson

Let me second what Serene said, and apologize if I made anyone uncomfortable with my probing. I don't see anything wrong or strange about any arrangement, come down to it, and I certainly don't think less of people who can have sold loving relationships with more than one other person - in fact, I admire it as it must be more challenging in many ways.

I'm barely adequate for one wife. I'd be useless to two or more

Argent Stonecutter

Irrational, imaginary, transcendent, hyperbolic, ... and people say there's no poetry in mathematics?