Does polyamory require independence ?

LoveQuest

New member
Hey there !

This is a philosophical question. Some people see each participant of a poly-amorous group as independent, and believe that the concept of independence must be deeply ingrained in the poly relationship for it to work, to the extent of having financial independence if possible.

Do you agree with that ?
 
Interconnectivity ...

I understand that all human social connections are created through emotional exchanges. You bring something to someone else's life and this person feels good about it. From that general description, we have romantic connections as a more specific type of connection that is mostly governed by sexual attraction (which makes it powerful, even if there is no actual sex).

Those exchanges are about each individual's needs. So stronger connections are linked to a better fulfillment of those needs, in deepness and variety. If however, you need a partner for financial or material reasons but not emotional, then there isn't any connection there. So people tend to think that having a connection and sharing resources are two unrelated things.

However, strong connections lead to the integration of people. They structure themselves as a family and feel like a family, and that leads to additional things being exchanged, such as housekeeping, taking care of kids and providing money, and with those exchanges other types of emotional needs are also fulfilled. Partners A and B works a lot during the week while partner C provides a lot of attention and care to the kids, and that makes everyone feel secure and safe, reinforcing their connections. So one thing leads to another.

Hence I believe polyamory requires a lot of co-operation and does result in each part depending on the others. The only difference from monogamy is that this dependency is shared. So if one partner is sick, unavailable, quits or dies, you may still be able to rely on someone else for that particular need.
 
I'm financially dependent on Hubby. We're married, and I have health issues that prevent me from working more than a few hours per week.

I'm emotionally dependent on Hubby and my boyfriend. I have mental health issues, and both of them know how to help me through panic attacks or PTSD episodes when my individual coping strategies fail me.

I think "having" to be independent to be poly is like "having" to feel compersion, or "having" to be friends with your metamours. Or any other "having to." There is no one right way to do poly. There is no one thing that anyone *has to* do in order to be polyamorous or have poly relationships. There's no reason to be any more independent in poly than one is in mono relationships, unless that's what you *want* to do. And the amount of independence in any relationship is going to be extremely variable based on the people involved.
 
Kc, thanks for your reply. Nicely put. Sounds like this arrangement couldn't be better. :)

In a mono relationship I guess it would much harder to deal with your health issues, both for you and for him. I hope you find your biological need too, and recover.
 
There is no one right way to do poly. There is no one thing that anyone *has to* do in order to be polyamorous or have poly relationships.
  • communicate -- openly, clearly, honestly, even brutally, & by all means constantly
  • awareness -- not misled by "good intentions"; be introspective, be vulnerable, be constantly brave
Lacking those, it can be nonmonogamy without being polyamory.
 
This is likely based on my post, so I'll provide context. I did the following bold generalization
I had a similar impression when I first came around this forum - that breaking up is suggested very easily. However, in time I came to understand why.
  • (...)
  • Second, the values of voluntary participation in relationships, of consent, of independence and personal responsibility are deeply ingrained in the basic philosophy of polyamory. "I’d rather be involved with a person who wants to be with me than a person who needs to be with me; the people who want to be with me are there because of the value I add to their lives, not because they have no other choice!" sais the famous more than two webside, and this thought is re-iterated over and over in various contexts*. People who are drawn to polyamory will generally value their own freedom of choice very highly, and put the well-being of the individual above the longevity of the relationship. They will resonate with the thought that we create our own lives rather than being victims of circumstance. They will be exactly the kind of person who (if possible) will maintain some financial independence even if happily married, not because they don't trust their partner, but because they feel it's their responsibility to be able to take care of themselves and their kids and be able to react even if everything goes very wrong. Seeing your participation in a relationship as a choice you make over and over again is perfectly in line with that.
Economic dependence of partners brings some hard to deal with problems with consent.
...
*This is not meant to be cruel. Of course, partners will need us, in sickness, for childcare, or in various other ways, and I do realize sometimes marriage is an economic necessity. On the webpage, the original citation refers to the ideal of being able to validate yourself.
We further proceeded to discuss how much is independence needed for consent.

I don't think poly and mono relationships are fundamentally different in terms of connection. I'm not saying there should be less cooperation going on either.
I think maybe there are multiple meanings to the word independence. I used it as 'freedom, possibility and ability to decide about myself', and I insist it's a value. This is not the same as 'emotional/physical distance from a partner'.
 
Last edited:
From that general description, we have romantic connections as a more specific type of connection that is mostly governed by sexual attraction (which makes it powerful, even if there is no actual sex).

Be careful about projecting how YOU experience romantic connections (i.e. "mostly governed by sexual attraction") onto the concept itself. Your comment negates the very real romantic connections experienced by asexual people.
 
Hi LoveQuest,

I think the level of independence required depends on the nature of the particular poly unit in question. I am thinking that if those in the unit are doing a lot of dating outside the unit, they will probably need more independence. I am not a very independent partner but, maybe the fact that my V is closed has something to do with that.

Regards,
Kevin T.
 
As always.. Awesome!

  • communicate -- openly, clearly, honestly, even brutally, & by all means constantly
  • awareness -- not misled by "good intentions"; be introspective, be vulnerable, be constantly brave
Lacking those, it can be nonmonogamy without being polyamory.

I would add Earnestness to the lists.
Do it earnestly or don't even ponder if you can do Polyamory or consensual nonmonogomy...true spiritual happiness within either concept as you view them is unavailable without!
So, my answer to the OP.. Yes! It would be best to begin with complete Independence.

Have a good day
 
I'd say that poly requires independence in the sense that someone being asked to give consent to be in a poly relationship needs to be able to say "no" without fear of losing their home/ family / financial security, or it's not true consent.
 
Is independence really good ?

Thanks for all replies !

Yes Tinwen, it was inspired by that post of yours.

SchrodingersCat, could you elaborate more on "romantic connections experienced by asexual people" ?

I do remember having romantic desires at very young age, much before puberty. However, I think this was moved by my "sexual brain", which was already developed. I mean, it was driven towards my sexual orientation. Isn't that always the case ?

kdt26417, yes, I agree. I understand that although rules can be renegotiated, the closed arrangement provides less freedom. However, it seems more prosperous, for working as a unit.
 
I'd say that poly requires independence in the sense that someone being asked to give consent to be in a poly relationship needs to be able to say "no" without fear of losing their home/ family / financial security, or it's not true consent.

^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^^
 
I'd say that poly requires independence in the sense that someone being asked to give consent to be in a poly relationship needs to be able to say "no" without fear of losing their home/ family / financial security, or it's not true consent.

I believe in this, I do. It's just that this can also be used to hold the other partner's desires captive and keep the couple locked in status quo.
 
Yes!!

Thanks for all replies !

Yes Tinwen, it was inspired by that post of yours.

SchrodingersCat, could you elaborate more on "romantic connections experienced by asexual people" ?

I do remember having romantic desires at very young age, much before puberty. However, I think this was moved by my "sexual brain", which was already developed. I mean, it was driven towards my sexual orientation. Isn't that always the case ?

kdt26417, yes, I agree. I understand that although rules can be renegotiated, the closed arrangement provides less freedom. However, it seems more prosperous, for working as a unit.

Big YES! It's awesome! It's Galactic joy!!
Independence is that good.!
 
The bird in your cage ...

PinkPig,

I believe in this, I do. It's just that this can also be used to hold the other partner's desires captive and keep the couple locked in status quo.

Yes. I believe the shared home, family and finances make it harder for any of the partners to renegotiate any relationship rules. It is much easier to just say a :mad: NO and shut down a partner who is always by your side and shares the life with you in such way. :( In contrast, it would take a large amount of courage to say NO to a partner who lives on a distance and has his independence, because you know he can't be controlled. :eek:

So, maybe the reason why so many people who dive into poly arrangements are so independent is because it is easier this way.
 
it is easier this way.
Yes... in the sense that "there's a LOT less garbage to deal with later on."
No... in the sense that being able to do so requires a lot of "prep work": with oneself, with one's partner(s), within one's relationship(s).

Elsewhere, I've referred to them respectively as back-loaded & front-loaded, terms swiped from investing (when I was married to Annie, she was a Series 6 securities rep with American Express :D) where you can choose to pay taxes either when you withdraw funds, or when you invest.

IME, back-loading encourages people to "forget" that they've accepted risk, which WILL NEED to eventually be resolved. Front-loading looks, on the surface, like a lot of "unnecessary" effort.
 
I can't be fully independent due to health issues and I still consider myself polyamorous. So yes, I think my existence is possible.
 
I believe in this, I do. It's just that this can also be used to hold the other partner's desires captive and keep the couple locked in status quo.

Or people can consider this in advance and develop ways of circumventing the issue. For example, I think it's a sage idea for couples to save an emergency fund and/or have firm plans of what they'd do in the event their relationship ceases to work. I have a sibling who has agreed that I could stay there for months if necessary in that event.

Now my live in partners have some assurance that they could propose a major change that might end our relationship and I wouldn't feel I have to agree or I'd lose all my security. I think this is especially poignant if there are clear factors that might become issues in the future. Like a potential mismatch on desires for children or a certain type of lifestyle.
 
One of my friends thinks polyamory is the epitome of dependence rather than independence. She feels monogamous people have to learn to cope without the unwavering support of a partner whereas polyamorous people have stand-ins when their "main" partner can't be there because they have other aspects to their life that need attending.
 
Or people can consider this in advance and develop ways of circumventing the issue. For example, I think it's a sage idea for couples to save an emergency fund and/or have firm plans of what they'd do in the event their relationship ceases to work. I have a sibling who has agreed that I could stay there for months if necessary in that event.

Now my live in partners have some assurance that they could propose a major change that might end our relationship and I wouldn't feel I have to agree or I'd lose all my security. I think this is especially poignant if there are clear factors that might become issues in the future. Like a potential mismatch on desires for children or a certain type of lifestyle.
Pretty much this.
 
Back
Top