Metamours

And no I do not think I'm putting him in a position to choose. He said that he would keep inviting everyone he wished to and it would always be my decision whether to attend or not, and I think that's fair. This is my thing to work on and I don't need to include anyone else on the ride.

I wish other people would handle things that way LOL. But I'm a very independent person. It's one of the reasons I'm trying out this lifestyle, I want to maintain complete independence of my own life. solo poly I guess.
 
Hubby and I have some "rules", which I try to call "agreements" rather than rules, because they're extremely negotiable for the most part and are intended more as guidelines for how we would *like* our marriage and my poly to work out, rather than commands about how it *has to* work.

Some of those--which were actually suggested by me, not Hubby--do impact S2. For the three of us, these things work because we've agreed to make them work. When something isn't comfortable or acceptable to one or more of us, we discuss and renegotiate it. And S2 is fully aware of the agreements Hubby and I have that would impact him; he's also aware that he always has the choice of asking for a change, or of ending the relationship if something just isn't okay with him.

End slight derail... that was just my perspective on how some couples/polyships have rules and agreements, whereas others don't.

Back on the track of the thread: When I was seeing Guy, Hubby already knew him; they met the same night Guy and I did, since it was at a bar get-together that Hubby and I were both at. So the meeting of the metamours wasn't an issue in that case.

Neither Hubby nor S2 asked for, let alone demanded, meeting each other. That meeting was *my* request. I made it clear to both of them that I was asking because *I* felt more comfortable with the situation if they at least knew who each other was, but that it was also entirely up to them whether they chose to meet or not. They chose to. They aren't necessarily friends, and may not interact with each other in future, but at least, as Hubby put it, they can "pick each other out of a lineup now."

For me, personally, if either Hubby or S2 had another partner, I would want to meet her, and I might ask to do so. But I wouldn't consider it my place to demand it, and if the guy and/or the metamour wasn't okay with it, I would respect that. I might not be happy about it, but that would be *my* thing to deal with, not their responsibility.
 
Last edited:
From the way you worded your first paragraph, it does indeed sound like the potential meeting is being framed somehow as more of an inspection than simple interest in a partner's metamour. Of course you have the right of refusal. If pressed for an explanation, "I don't know why, I just don't like the idea" should be perfectly acceptable.

Personally, I'd be interested in just why the other woman is suddenly so eager to meet you. It could be as offensive a reason as "checking out the competition" or as innocent as simple interest. Your remark about this meeting being necessary to move THEIR relationship to some "next step" is what really concerned me...
 
IIf I start dating A's husband B, and their relationship says only threesomes with both A and B are allowed, I can't just change that.
Yeah, that is one of the stupidest rules ever, so hopefully you would have the sense to walk away from that kind of disrespectful bullshit!
 
Yeah, that is one of the stupidest rules ever, so hopefully you would have the sense to walk away from that kind of disrespectful bullshit!

It's only stupid if you're poly. I identify as poly, but will occasionally engage with non mono types. Rules like that generally drive me away, but I've made exceptions.
 
In our network, or more specifically, in my relationships, the people who refuse to spend time in the company of metamours are usually limited to casual partners. We think it's unfair to stop one partner from attending an event simply because another partner is unable to share space. So, the partner that doesn't want to meet will never be present at birthdays, Bbqs, parties or anything like that and that makes for a pretty casual relationship. Make sure that you're happy allowing these feelings you have about your metamour dictate how serious your relationship becomes.
 
In our network, or more specifically, in my relationships, the people who refuse to spend time in the company of metamours are usually limited to casual partners. We think it's unfair to stop one partner from attending an event simply because another partner is unable to share space. So, the partner that doesn't want to meet will never be present at birthdays, Bbqs, parties or anything like that and that makes for a pretty casual relationship. Make sure that you're happy allowing these feelings you have about your metamour dictate how serious your relationship becomes.

Exactly. It's not to be mean. But any metamour who chooses to be apart from the family just won't get enough time to develop the kind of deep relationship I share with my currently only partner.
 
In our network, or more specifically, in my relationships, the people who refuse to spend time in the company of metamours are usually limited to casual partners. We think it's unfair to stop one partner from attending an event simply because another partner is unable to share space. So, the partner that doesn't want to meet will never be present at birthdays, Bbqs, parties or anything like that and that makes for a pretty casual relationship. Make sure that you're happy allowing these feelings you have about your metamour dictate how serious your relationship becomes.

Im fine with that. My family life with nate is our life, I really don't have any desire adding other people to that. My relationship with sam isn't casual at all, its just separate. Sam gets plenty of time with me, I personally think it would be unfair to have my partners infringe upon my time with them by having other people they are with around. Certain days of the week are set aside for me. Like tue and sat im with sam, so tue and sat are days Nate has to date (along with any time im at school and work) but Sunday and Friday are my nights with nate and no one is infringing on that time.
 
Last edited:
It's only stupid if you're poly. I identify as poly, but will occasionally engage with non mono types. Rules like that generally drive me away, but I've made exceptions.

No. It's stupid and disrespectful for anyone. People have the right to choose whom they wish to share their bodies with - no one else should ever be allowed to require that someone have sex with a particular person for any reason.
 
No. It's stupid and disrespectful for anyone. People have the right to choose whom they wish to share their bodies with - no one else should ever be allowed to require that someone have sex with a particular person for any reason.

You aren't requiring anyone to have sex with anyone. You're limiting it to people who want both of you.

You're never gonna be poly with that standard, but not everyone is Poly. Some people are just into multiple sexual partners.
 
I personally couldn't imagine not knowing my metamours and not having anything to do with them. For one thing, I have kids with my primary partner and my secondary partner has kids with his wife. I don't allow anyone around my children that I don't know. I met my boyfriend's wife after we had been seeing each other for a couple months. We are not best friends by any means but we talk and we are comfortable with the other person being around our kids. She is just as much as a protective mama as I am so she needed to meet me before I was around her kids.

The other thing is that I care very deeply for my partner and by extension I care for his wife and kids because they are a part of him. If you truly love someone, you love all the parts of them including the other parts they love.
 
I personally couldn't imagine not knowing my metamours and not having anything to do with them. For one thing, I have kids with my primary partner and my secondary partner has kids with his wife. I don't allow anyone around my children that I don't know. I met my boyfriend's wife after we had been seeing each other for a couple months. We are not best friends by any means but we talk and we are comfortable with the other person being around our kids. She is just as much as a protective mama as I am so she needed to meet me before I was around her kids.

The other thing is that I care very deeply for my partner and by extension I care for his wife and kids because they are a part of him. If you truly love someone, you love all the parts of them including the other parts they love.

Lol my ex whom i have 2 kids with has been with his wife for 5.5 years ive never met her, at this point I probably won't.

I don't agree that you have to care or love the peoplle your partner does. I might be willing to be cordial but that is just a nicety
 
Last edited:
You aren't requiring anyone to have sex with anyone. You're limiting it to people who want both of you.

You're never gonna be poly with that standard, but not everyone is Poly. Some people are just into multiple sexual partners.


Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Pick a prize from the top row!

It's amazing to me how few people can make that rather obvious distinction. Then again, most people see only what they want to see, so I guess it shouldn't be that surprising.
 
Lol my ex whom i have 2 kids with has been with his wife for 5.5 years ive never met her, at this point I probably won't.

I don't agree that you have to care or love the peoplle your partner does. I might be willing to be cordial but that is just a nicety

I guess I don't think you have to love or care for your metamours, I think I have to... If that makes sense. My primary has flings and I don't meet them but neither do my children. I think its important to me that I have that relationship with my long term metamours.

My boyfriend's wife had experiences with his ex-girlfriends not wanting anything to do with her and she didn't care for it either. We by no means talk every day or have a relationship. But we support each other and are there for each other. Sometimes there are things about him that only the two of us get and its nice to bond over that too. Not to mention we are not in a poly friendly area so we don't have a big circle we can talk to about poly related things.
 
You aren't requiring anyone to have sex with anyone. You're limiting it to people who want both of you.
That is not how you put it. I was responding to the "only threesomes" part. Having an agreement between more than two partners to be polyfidelitous is quite different from what you said:

. . . their relationship says only threesomes with both A and B are allowed . . .
If a couple has a rule that anyone who gets involved with them is only allowed to be sexual with them if it is a threesome, that rule is obviously not just about polyfidelity. :rolleyes:

It is about controlling sex with the third person. The couple may see that rule as who they get to have sex with, how to control jealousy, or how to do poly right (whatever!), but in their myopic couple-centric view, they miss the fact that such a rule has a flip side for the unfortunate third person, as it is basically dictating that all sex has to be a threesome which means that there is no room for the their partner to have a choice like, maybe only fucking one of them instead of both of them. To me, that is reprehensible.

In addition, having a rule that no one can have sex with someone not in the triad is ridiculous. Even in monogamous pairings, there is a period of dating where it is acceptable to be with other people before making the commitment to exclusivity. It is exasperating to constantly read here how these newbie couples have the fucking brilliant idea that anyone who becomes involved with them must be faithful only to them from the very start and only fuck both of them at the same time, all the time, while they (the couple) can have private one-on-one time with each other. Poor little unicorns! They have no say about their own sex lives! Sure, if that is what a person wants, it is fine if the choice is their own, but the sticking point is a couple having such a rule that someone must adhere to in order to be involved with them. There is no wonder why so many triads implode and are considered the most unstable configuration in poly circles.

Poly relationships need to grow and develop organically like any other. Reaching the point of having an agreement among all parties to be polyfidelitous is certainly a much more favorable path than one couple dictating to anyone who might be interested that they can only have sex in threesomes. Sheesh.

Any person with a brain and some common sense would not engage with a couple like that.
 
Last edited:
If you truly love someone, you love all the parts of them including the other parts they love.
That is faulty logic.

What if you love an addict and the other people in his life are enablers that keep him going back to his drug of choice? Do you love his addiction? Do you love the people who are bad influences on him just because he loves them?
 
While having a rule that a third person can only have sex with the other two *at the same time* (i.e. the threesome rule) does sound unfair to the third person, I don't see it as wrong or controlling... IF the third person is made aware of the rule from the start and agrees to it.

If someone enters into a relationship with eyes wide open, fully aware of the rules and agreements, they are accepting and agreeing to follow those rules. If they know they can only be sexual with the couple together and choose to enter that relationship anyway, they have chosen to only have threesome sex, they *know* they have only chosen to have threesome sex, and that's their choice.

And as with anything, if they decide it isn't working for them, they can walk away.

To me, the threesome rule would only be "reprehensible", as nycindie put it, if the third person wasn't told about it until *after* he/she had gotten involved with one or both members of the couple.

It definitely isn't something that work for me personally. For one thing, I have no interest whatsoever in women. I wouldn't become involved with a couple under those circumstances, and I wouldn't ask anyone to become involved with Hubby and me as a couple. But that's *my* choice. Other people's choices are up to them, at least among consenting adults.

I do agree about the "loving all parts" thing, though. Family is a perfect example. By that logic, I should love and accept Hubby's aunt, even though she spent a Thanksgiving dinner ranting at me about being a shitty parent and calling Country names, because the conversation at the dinner table got too loud and Country couldn't tolerate it, so she put her hands over her ears and said, "Everyone please be quiet!" And then got up and left the table. The aunt found that proof that I can't parent my children and that Country is "mentally defective"...and the worst part was that not only did the aunt know Country is on the autism spectrum--her job involves WORKING WITH KIDS LIKE COUNTRY. We haven't spoken to her since, and everyone in the family knows that if she and we are invited to the same family event, we won't be there. Most of the family has chosen to continue inviting us and leave her out--even her own daughter.

I don't think *meeting* everyone in your partner's life is necessary, let alone *loving* them. And that even goes for metamours and the partner's kids, if any. I chose to ask Hubby and S2 to meet; they chose to agree. S2 chose to let me meet Beads and Spikes and I chose to do so; I chose to let him meet Country and Alt and he chose to do so. Meeting anyone in your partner's life should be a choice, not a requirement. (Personally, I would make an exception about meeting metamours where kids are involved, though... For example, I'm kind of surprised S2's ex hasn't asked to meet me yet, because she knows I'm around the boys sometimes. When my ex met his current wife, and when I met Hubby, my ex and I said the other's partner *had* to meet us, because we each wanted to know the other adult who was going to be around our children. But that doesn't mean I'm friends with his wife, or that he's friends with Hubby. Nor would I want to be friends with either of them; I can only tolerate my ex in very small doses.)
 
Last edited:
I'm going to chime in and say that the "loving all parts" thing is something that rubs me the wrong way, because my ex used to love to use it against me. I don't like something/want to discuss something/have an issue with something? Well, if you don't like *it* then you don't like *me*!

It a manipulative, toxic idea to have under those conditions, and it effectively shut down any disagreement before it happened. If I turned it around? It was "well, I'm talking about <action>, not YOU." (Although he never accepted that answer himself)

I know that's not how you meant it, but it's a fine line between believing that, and then getting hurt when it really doesn't work like that.

While Chops and I have many things in common, there are plenty of things we don't. It means that we're our own people. I don't need (nor want) to feign liking (or MAKE myself like) something I just don't - like some of his musical tastes, etc. It just strikes me as sycophantic if I were to try.
 
To the OP, I applaud you for your sticking by your decision to not meet the metamour as you have clearly stated your reasons for doing so. It sounds like you are not quite certain where you fall in this relationship as yet and are not in a hurry to dive in... meeting the metamour can wait until you decide you want such a thing to happen (if indeed such a time comes).

As has been stated a number of times, this is obviously your decision to make and you are already aware of the limitations that the decision will place on your involvement. Good for you.

The other thing is that I care very deeply for my partner and by extension I care for his wife and kids because they are a part of him. If you truly love someone, you love all the parts of them including the other parts they love.
That is faulty logic.

What if you love an addict and the other people in his life are enablers that keep him going back to his drug of choice? Do you love his addiction? Do you love the people who are bad influences on him just because he loves them?
I'm going to chime in and say that the "loving all parts" thing is something that rubs me the wrong way, because my ex used to love to use it against me. I don't like something/want to discuss something/have an issue with something? Well, if you don't like *it* then you don't like *me*!

I'm glad to see that I don't need to love every aspect of a human in order to "truly love" them (whatever that means). I was really worried for a second there :)
 
That is faulty logic.

What if you love an addict and the other people in his life are enablers that keep him going back to his drug of choice? Do you love his addiction? Do you love the people who are bad influences on him just because he loves them?

I think taking a single sentence from an entire paragraph explaining my feelings about my metamours is faulty logic. You took my sentence and made it seem as if I was saying that this was true for every person in every situation. You also added the element of toxicity which is an exception to any rule. If my metamour was toxic to my partner or to my own life that would be entirely different.

And you know what? I do love an addict. His addiction and those demons he fights are a part of who he is. And I recognize that those people who enabled his addiction are the ones who got him through the hardest part of his life even if they are the ones who are making it hard for him to move on. You can love someone, recognize they are too toxic for you, and remove them from your life while still loving and accepting that this is who they are.
 
Back
Top