Polyamory HOUSE - Would you live here?

What would you most like to see in the Polyamory House?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if in Jill's circle all forms of ethical non monogamy are referred to as Polyamory? They are broad constructionists rather than strict constructionists in their interpretation and that fueled some of the difficulty in communication. The other thing seemed to be that perhaps some people mistook Jill's boyfriend Paul's apartment project for the community Jill was originally envisioning and discussing. I think they were two separate projects with different goals.

Leetah
 
I wonder if in Jill's circle all forms of ethical non monogamy are referred to as Polyamory? They are broad constructionists rather than strict constructionists in their interpretation and that fueled some of the difficulty in communication. The other thing seemed to be that perhaps some people mistook Jill's boyfriend Paul's apartment project for the community Jill was originally envisioning and discussing. I think they were two separate projects with different goals.

Leetah

The house is called a poly house. What I haven't said is that I have lived in places like this pretty much my whole adult life. It's only recently that three of us decided to have a quieter abode as we are all getting old and cranky. Then I went to work away for a year or so but we still have that place.

My real fear from personal experience is that those who focus on the sex and not the polyamory usually have the most issues with adjusting to their partner having an emotionally intimate relationship with other people. After a while, the mad, crazy sex parties cool down and real life sets in. Some people are a lot more comfortable walking in on their partner fucking someone else than they are walking in to see them in bed and snuggling or in an otherwise emotionally intimate embrace.

As a seasoned poly vet, I don't have time to deal with that sort of drama anymore. My instinct for these types of situations has only improved as I have become older and more cynical and these people seem prone to that sort of monoamorous thinking. This "poly house" screams "mono drama" to me.
 
Finally read the post (the site is blocked from work).

Other than the focus on sexy people, sexy times, monthly parties, nude beaches, etc., which I think has been beaten to death at this point, the part that really stands out for me is the "don't bring too much stuff" part.

How is that really going to work in practice? I would imagine there'd need to be some level of privacy and personal space, as things like laptops may not be the best things to share (especially if they're work assets or being used for student projects).

Are you expecting a dorm room level of "personal items"? Stuff that fits in your room (do people get assigned rooms, or are they expected to get whatever bed works that night)? Bringing in personal items helps someone feel vested in where they're living, and discouraging this may mean that the roomies aren't investing much time and effort (if any at all) into keeping that apartment in good shape. Paul may find himself doing more maintenance than having sexy times.

Who gets to sleep in the house? If a roomie finds a potential partner, are they allowed to come over (eating up one of the bed spots)? Are they allowed private time? Or are any outside relationships supposed to be kept outside the house?

And one car for six people? One car that everyone will use? Get that maintenance / fueling / no eating-drinking agreement set up NOW, as well as time-sharing rules. This sounds untenable, unless everyone walks/takes public transportation everywhere. Also, make sure the insurance on the car covers multiple drivers (or their insurance will cover them driving that car).

It's the little, day-to-day details that are going to kill any roommate agreement, and those really need to be hashed out beforehand, so people know what they're getting into.

FWIW, I did go to your site, Jill, and read your definition of Polyamory. You take great pains to explain that saying you're Poly and acknowledging your relationships doesn't equate to "talking about what's going on behind closed doors" and you're right. I think everyone here would agree with that sentiment. So when people here say that it seems a bit more swingery than poly, it might be good to realize that the advertisement for this apartment does sound "behind closed (or open!) doors" focused.

The folks you're trying to convince in your "Define Polyamory" page aren't going to be convinced when they see the focus on sexy times in the ad for the apartment. How can these relationships be loving when they're being auditioned like a reality show? There's a disparity there that can call your entire "define polyamory" page into question for the folks you seem to be addressing.
 
Last edited:
Calmed down

I've spoken to Paul and re read the advert and see exactly what most of you are getting at, although some of you have taken it somewhat out of context but I guess that's the point of this forum and the point is fairly mutual.

I was in a somewhat sexy mood after just coming back from the UK and Paul had asked me to write the ad up for him so some of my own fantasies (and non realistic nor properly thought out ideas) went into it. I spoke to Paul last night and we laughed when we read through it again as it totally seems like we are looking for sexual house mates, I guess I was looking for a fun pad to some extent for him but it's not what Paul wants - he, me and most people (poly or not) would want to develop relationships with people by getting to know them first and not by putting sex on the table as a starting point. I honestly don't think I would move in to something that had those expectations myself. Paul is poly and wants to live in a house that is a safe haven for people that want to live with like minded people the fantasy stuff came out of this little minx's head lol, he does not know what possessed me to make the rooms open plan living, no I think of it, me neither haha.

Again thanks for all your comments, I got extremely worked up yesterday as my advert was coming across in way which I felt didn't represent myself or Paul, however, this is not dignified, sorry If I lashed out and I wish you all a very happy day!
 
Dammit, now you're giving alienation a bad name. There's such a thing as not fitting in gracefully, y'know. You don't have to piss in the punchbowl and leave.

Wait a sec. "Collarado" [sic]? Now I get it. Weed used to make me paranoid too. That's why I gave it up.

Haha! That cheered me up! (don't smoke the stuff I'm afraid) more like PMT yesterday lol.
 
I wonder if in Jill's circle all forms of ethical non monogamy are referred to as Polyamory? They are broad constructionists rather than strict constructionists in their interpretation and that fueled some of the difficulty in communication. The other thing seemed to be that perhaps some people mistook Jill's boyfriend Paul's apartment project for the community Jill was originally envisioning and discussing. I think they were two separate projects with different goals.

Leetah

Yep, although my original idea is changing now anyway, some fantasies I have are not really based an anyones reality (including my reality) I guess that's what makes us human.
 
I think you have misunderstood the point here. Polyamory speaks about multiple intimate consensual relationships. You can be having sex with a lot of people in the same time frame without meeting this criteria of polyamory. Swingers do it all the time. When you say "I am poly", it usually means that you'd be open to having a wife and a girlfriend, or a husband and a boyfriend, or a mixture. Swingers, monoamorous swingers, would not be open to having more than one person with a "partner title" like spouse or girlfriend.

Distinguishing between swinging type activities and a polyamorous lifestyle does not inherently mean sex outside of a loving relationship is wrong. It just means that restricting "love" to one dyad whilst sharing sex with more than one person is not polyamory. The house situation described by the OP does not mention whether the housemates are expected to love each other as romantic partners, but it makes it clear that they are expected to share sex to some degree. That makes it more like a "swinging" environment where polyamory isn't forbidden than the opposite.

Swinging, in my experience, involves some form of quid pro quo. For example, I am not welcome in a swing club or party unless I bring a female partner. I can't have sex with a female swinger unless her partner can have sex with my partner. I'm not comfortable with these arrangements, so I don't consider myself a swinger.

"Restricting 'love' to one dyad" (or triad, tetrad, pentad, hexad, heptad or what-have-you) is, in my opinion, impossible, because restricting love, honestly, isn't possible. As long as you have the capacity to love, you can't control whether people will inspire those feelings in you or whether they will have them for you. You can only control how you respond to them. The same is true of physical attraction. To me, polyamory is just the acknowledgment that we can have these feelings for more than one person at a time and that we should be free to express those feelings as long as they are welcome.
 
Yep, although my original idea is changing now anyway, some fantasies I have are not really based an anyones reality (including my reality) I guess that's what makes us human.

That's what makes them fantasies, and just because yours might not be practical as the basis for establishing a viable household or community, that doesn't mean you shouldn't look for some way to give them life. They are in some way an expression of your desires, and if you can fulfill them without hurting anybody, you should try. Just don't try to base a sustainable living arrangement on them, or people will be hurt.
 
Swinging, in my experience, involves some form of quid pro quo. For example, I am not welcome in a swing club or party unless I bring a female partner. I can't have sex with a female swinger unless her partner can have sex with my partner. I'm not comfortable with these arrangements, so I don't consider myself a swinger.

"Restricting 'love' to one dyad" (or triad, tetrad, pentad, hexad, heptad or what-have-you) is, in my opinion, impossible, because restricting love, honestly, isn't possible. As long as you have the capacity to love, you can't control whether people will inspire those feelings in you or whether they will have them for you. You can only control how you respond to them. The same is true of physical attraction. To me, polyamory is just the acknowledgment that we can have these feelings for more than one person at a time and that we should be free to express those feelings as long as they are welcome.

It is true that many commercial swinging events have gender based ruling. It is also true that many swingers have rules that dictate hierarchy and protection of the dyad and that is because many swingers are monoamorous. They only wish to share sex outside of their relationship, not emotional intimacy. Thus, they have rules that ensure they get exactly what they need from swinging without caring too much about "couple privilege" because they aren't looking for a polyamorous relationship style. However, many swingers, especially ones who are polyamorous rather than monoamorous don't feel the need for these rules. They are happy to swing alone, as part of a couple, or as part of a group. Swinging does not only take place at those commercial events. It can be a private arrangement too. So, theoretically, you could find a group of people who do not have such rules but are willing to have casual, recreational sexual interactions.

A monoamorous person doesn't usually have to consciously restrict other relationships with rules and boundaries. They have no wish to interact in that way outside of their dyad so they simply don't. Sometimes, sharing sex with other people means that they develop feelings or display behaviors inadvertently cross those boundaries; from my experience, monoamorous swingers make it pretty clear when you may be doing this and ask you to respect their limits.

I have participated in swinging for much of my adult life. I have many good friends in the swinging communities, and I have to say that from my personal experience, most swingers are monoamorous. Especially the ones who are regulars to the scene. Some swingers even think that polyamory is wrong in the way that monogamous people do.
 
People that don't bring stuff with them are by nature in a transient time of their lives.

I take exception to that. Being obsessed with material possessions is not synonymous with being established and stable. Plenty of minimalists live decades in the same home, they just don't fill that home with crap.
 
@JillSummer,

The reassessment is welcome but I would have preferred no apology over the non-apology apology offered. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology) The 'If I' formula is generally a way to avoid taking responsibility rather than an actual apology.

I take exception to that. Being obsessed with material possessions is not synonymous with being established and stable. Plenty of minimalists live decades in the same home, they just don't fill that home with crap.

That's true, SC, but I think the overall point is still accurate. I don't have a lot of stuff - way less than most Americans (an admittedly low bar) - but I do own a home. So I am just not very mobile. I would lose money if I decided to pick up and move. People without a lot of stuff do tend to be more mobile, especially if they don't own real estate or have a lease. More mobile can mean more transient (although not necessarily).
 
Swinging, in my experience, involves some form of quid pro quo. For example, I am not welcome in a swing club or party unless I bring a female partner. I can't have sex with a female swinger unless her partner can have sex with my partner.

This is because you're a man, not because swinging requires swapping. It's simple economics. There are a lot more men who offer NSA sex than there are women, so a man must bring something along to sweeten the pot. For a woman, being a woman is more than enough and she is granted entry with no partner required. Of course, it's not always this way, but generally, this is the deal.
 
People without a lot of stuff do tend to be more mobile, especially if they don't own real estate or have a lease. More mobile can mean more transient (although not necessarily).

Exactly. My point was not to slam Zen decor, but to say that the advertisement has "transitory" written all over it.
 
A monoamorous person doesn't usually have to consciously restrict other relationships with rules and boundaries. They have no wish to interact in that way outside of their dyad so they simply don't.

And it works perfectly, all the time. :roll eyes:

The tragedy of monogamy is that people make commitments not to have feelings that they simply can't control, so when they, almost inevitably, experience these feelings, they don't know what to do. They can't talk to their spouse; their friends will give them terrible advice, and their clergyman will tell them to feel guilty about it. They will think they're a terrible person or that there must be something wrong with their marriage or they wouldn't be feeling this way. Who here hasn't seen this played out a hundred times?

Sometimes, sharing sex with other people means that they develop feelings or display behaviors inadvertently cross those boundaries; from my experience, monoamorous swingers make it pretty clear when you may be doing this and ask you to respect their limits.

I know I'm going to develop feelings for someone if I have sex with them. That's kind of the point of sharing such a deeply moving experience. If you're not feeling anything emotionally, you might as well be masturbating. When it comes to behaviors, of course I respect people's boundaries, especially people I care for. Respect is kind of a prerequisite for liking someone, much less loving them. But with respect comes honesty: I'm not going to pretend I don't have those feelings just because I've agreed not to express them. They're simply of no consequence if they're unwelcome.
 
This is because you're a man, not because swinging requires swapping. It's simple economics. There are a lot more men who offer NSA sex than there are women, so a man must bring something along to sweeten the pot. For a woman, being a woman is more than enough and she is granted entry with no partner required. Of course, it's not always this way, but generally, this is the deal.

From my friends who host sex-positive parties, they argue they have to limit the number of single men who attend because if they do not, the party turns into an 'sausage fest' where women are outnumbered. In a sexual situation, when women are outnumbered by men, they can often feel threatened or at least uncomfortable. So the women leave (and often stop attending such parties altogether). This leads to no one having sex at all. Swinger clubs have 'no single men' rules to prevent similar sausage fests because if the women stay away, no one has any fun (and they don't make money). Men in couples with straight or bi women 'balance' their presence out with a woman companion. It's not fair. But it does make internal sense.

I think it is possible to have a comfortable atmosphere where people feel safe without 'gender balancing' at a sex-positive party. And this model doesn't take into account people who changed genders, or who slide along the gender spectrum or don't think of themselves as gendered at all. It's also very heterosexually focused despite the common assumption that women who swing are all bisexual or at least bi-curious. I personally find that assumption maddening (and I am bi!) Men who are bisexual are often not wanted at swing parties although I hear this is lessening in many swing communities.
 
This is because you're a man, not because swinging requires swapping. It's simple economics. There are a lot more men who offer NSA sex than there are women, so a man must bring something along to sweeten the pot. For a woman, being a woman is more than enough and she is granted entry with no partner required. Of course, it's not always this way, but generally, this is the deal.

Which is why I'll never go to a swing club or party. I've had friends offer to go with me, but when it came right down to it, I just didn't feel welcome. My friend was welcome with or without me, and they'd even tolerate me if we went together, but they clearly didn't want me there, so I didn't go.
 
I think it is possible to have a comfortable atmosphere where people feel safe without 'gender balancing' at a sex-positive party.

Yes, it's definitely possible. My sex-positive social group does welcome a few single men who are known to have good attitudes, good energy, etc. and there is no need to make sure there's an even number of men and women at each gathering. Although a mostly hereto-oriented group, there is a lot of bisexual action among the woman and some among the men.

I understand what Jill is going for in the sex-positive house, but to get the level required to sustain such a social group, the participants need a lot of self awareness, generosity of spirit and just general life experience. The youngish or unsettled people in Jill's fantasy sex-positive house will be happy to have sex, but probably not be so good at maintaining secure, ongoing relationships and the place would indeed be a drama-soaked reality show with no cameras. Sex-positive social groups that allow for loving feelings and are free of gender quotas require a great deal of maturity and life experience. People with that kind of life experience are just not going to be drawn to this housing situation (if they are even let in, depending on what Paul thinks of their photos.)
 
Last edited:
And it works perfectly, all the time. :roll eyes:

The tragedy of monogamy is that people make commitments not to have feelings that they simply can't control, so when they, almost inevitably, experience these feelings, they don't know what to do. They can't talk to their spouse; their friends will give them terrible advice, and their clergyman will tell them to feel guilty about it. They will think they're a terrible person or that there must be something wrong with their marriage or they wouldn't be feeling this way. Who here hasn't seen this played out a hundred times?



I know I'm going to develop feelings for someone if I have sex with them. That's kind of the point of sharing such a deeply moving experience. If you're not feeling anything emotionally, you might as well be masturbating. When it comes to behaviors, of course I respect people's boundaries, especially people I care for. Respect is kind of a prerequisite for liking someone, much less loving them. But with respect comes honesty: I'm not going to pretend I don't have those feelings just because I've agreed not to express them. They're simply of no consequence if they're unwelcome.

It isn't inevitable that monogamous people develop feelings outside their dyad. That's why people are so hurt and confused when their partner cheats on them. It also isn't true that all monogamous people associate with "clergymen".

You may feel that there isn't any point in sex without developing feelings for the individual with whom you are interacting, but many swingers have this exact intention. And no, they don't feel as though they might as well be masturbating. It might be better for you to masturbate instead of swinging, but your needs are not universal.
 
I know I'm going to develop feelings for someone if I have sex with them.

That's you.

That's kind of the point of sharing such a deeply moving experience.

For you.

If you're not feeling anything emotionally, you might as well be masturbating.

You don't love yourself? You don't feel an emotional connection to yourself when you masturbate? How sad :(


Careful about projecting your own preferences onto some notion of what's normal and proper for everyone. Lots of people enjoy casual sex and get plenty out of it that they don't get from masturbating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top