What part does commitment play in poly?

polyexplorer

New member
I am questioning what part commitment plays in relationships...

Is it healthy to commit to another person or to remain free and allow them to be free?

If it is healthy to commit in some way, what is it that is healthy to actually commit to?

I'm interested in what people have to say on the subject.... Thanks:)
 
I am questioning what part commitment plays in relationships...

My gut feeling about this is that most poly relationships are committed, to some degree. So yes, definitely commitment plays a part in poly. Poly people view commitment differently than mono people. Commitment does not mean "no sex / love / intimacy with others" in poly. What exactly it means is to be defined in each relationship separately.

Is it healthy to commit to another person or to remain free and allow them to be free?

Both options can be healthy, depending on what the individuals in the relationship want and need for their happiness.

If it is healthy to commit in some way, what is it that is healthy to actually commit to?

Again, this depends on the individuals. The commitments are healthy if everyone involved joined in with a "joyful yes!" (to use GalaGirl's expression). The details can be whatever - from supporting each other financially and co-parenting to "let's meet once a month and have nice sex". The important part is that everyone involved is happy.
 
I am questioning what part commitment plays in relationships...

Not sure if you mean poly or mono, but in mono relationships, commitment shows it's "real" and defines you as off-limits to all others. In poly, commitment defines the level of attachment. You could be committed in whatever capacity you feel like, whether that means intimate friend or spousal-type.

Is it healthy to commit to another person or to remain free and allow them to be free?

You needn't have commitment to have a healthy relationship, but why should defining commitment be unhealthy? My partner and I have spoken and mutually decided we want to build a life together. Not everyone feels the need to do so, but certainly that's been a healthy choice for us.

If it is healthy to commit in some way, what is it that is healthy to actually commit to?

It's healthy to commit to the level that you and the other person are comfortable with. Unhealthiness has a potential of entering if you are doing it out of insecurity or co-dependence, but as long as it's simply to clarify expectations, I can't see anything wrong with commitment.
 
The answer, in my opinion, to all the questions is "It depends."

"Healthy" is a very subjective thing. Some people wouldn't consider a poly relationship healthy at all, regardless of whether there's a commitment or not. For some people, making a commitment might feel unhealthy because of past experiences, or because they're only doing so to please their partner, or because it makes them feel trapped... etc.

Whether it's healthy to make a commitment depends on the people involved and the purpose behind the commitment. And what specific commitments are or are not healthy also depends on the people and the purpose.

Personally, I think any type of emotional connection with another *is* a form of commitment. If you're friends with someone, you're at least implicitly committing to spending time with that person, talking to them, enjoying being around them, etc. If you're in a relationship, whether poly or mono, you're at least implicitly committing to spending time with that person, respecting their boundaries, communicating with them, etc. This is how *I* see it, at least.

A commitment to someone else doesn't have to be a formal thing, and it can be whatever level and whatever type the people involved are comfortable with. Hubby and I are committed to each other by legal marriage, as well as by promises we've made to each other over the course of our relationship. We started off as mono; when we transitioned to an open marriage and then to our current arrangement, where I'm poly and he's exclusive with me, we refined those promises, eliminated some, and made new ones.

S2 went into this believing he wasn't ready for any kind of commitment, since his marriage only ended several months ago. His profile on the site we met through specifies that he's only interested in non-monogamy. But somewhere along the line he apparently changed his mind. He expressed his commitment to me by saying, "Well, so much for non-monogamy; seeing other people doesn't feel right to me" and by changing his relationship status on that site from "Separated" to "Attached." And I expressed mine to him by telling him I wanted to be with only him and Hubby, and by adding a line to my profile on that site stating that I'm both married and attached, and not seeking anyone or anything else.

So on top of whether a commitment is "healthy" or "unhealthy" being almost entirely dependent on the people involved, the way that commitment is expressed and defined can also vary widely.

Long story short, as I said at the beginning... it depends.
 
For me, remaining free and allowing the other person(s) to remain free is absolutely neccessary to remain in a healthy, loving mindset... I need the certainty that it will be perfectly okay for everyone involved to get up and leave at any time, for any reason. So yeah, I'm very much uncommitted. Doesn't stop me at all from being in a close, loving, and stable 'ship for over six years and running. :)


But I strongly second the general consensus here of "it depends". Just because I can't personally relate to how "healthy commitment" is supposed to work, and would ruin my relationships (partnered, friendly, whathaveyou) if I brought commitments into them, doesn't mean that it couldn't be healthy, loving, and adequate for others in their lives. I'm me, I'm not you.
 
There are many kinds of polyamory; some have a lot of commitment; others have no commitment at all. I would say polyfidelity has a lot of commitment; RA (Relationship Anarchy) has no commitment at all. Or that's my understanding.

Anti-poly types often say that people get into polyamory because they don't have the guts to commit and they want to run away from commitment. Such polyamorists are supposedly switching partners all the time, due to wanting a fresh NRE fix.

That's an oversimplification. Polyamory encompasses a wide range of relationship models, and even those who don't formally commit (e.g. InsaneMystic) tend to form relationships that last for quite awhile.
 
Commitment in any relationship can be defined in a number of ways.

I view commitment as an allegiance with and promise to someone (or someones) who is/are aligned toward the same or similar goals. If it's a life-long commitment, that's up to the people involved. In love relationships, one can be committed to someone, without that commitment necessarily meaning marriage or forever -- or even long-term. You can commit to supporting your partner(s) to be the best they can be, for example, without a time stamp on it. Basically, it's like a personal contract, and the commitments will mean whatever the people involved want it to mean, depending on what they're committing to.

They can be in an open relationship and committed to honesty and safer sex; they can be poly-fi and committed to being faithful to each other; they can be monogamous and committed to growing old together. Of course, these are just a few scenarios off the top of my head, but you get the idea. It can be any combination of whatever the people want. But I do think progression toward deeper understanding and knowledge of each other, and self-growth, is often a large part of being committed, when the word is used to mean "serious about nurturing this relationship and seeing it continue."

I think that, simply, the act of committing to/with someone is a form of allegiance and a promise or oath to work toward something, or uphold some specific practice or credo, and support each other in that endeavor. For most polyfolk, there is usually a commitment to honesty.

If I commit to giving and nurturing my partner in the best way possible, to be there for them through thick and thin, and to always have their back, that could also include letting the relationship go if that was what was needed for the person to thrive and be healthy emotionally. I do not need them to be tethered to me for me to love, encourage, and support them. It's not about running away when it suits me but looking at how a relationship has evolved and seeing if there is a need to part company. If a relationship ends, it isn't necessarily a failure or lack of commitment -- it could be exactly what the relations.hip needed.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all your replies so far...

Let me perhaps clarify my questions a little more by adding in some background story...

I married my "soulmate" 23 years ago. We made a commitment to each other to be monogamous and life long partners ("till death do us part" sort of thing...). 15 years into my marriage I reached a fork in the road in my life journey. I knew which path I needed to take. My wife couldn't walk this path with me. We are now divorced.

Now I am reconsidering what commitment, if at all, looks like in any relationship, whether it be poly or mono. One could argue that commitment can change over time, but then is it really commitment if one can chop and change it at any time?

So my original question around is it healthy to commit is based on my story of committing to a relationship, and then finding that life can be so unexpected that the commitment needs to be revisited. And if a commitment needs to be revisited, how much of a commitment is it really? Is it better to be a "Relational Anarchist" and just allow people to come and go in our life with no expectation or commitment?

I totally understand that people will have different views based on their worldview and experience, but this is exactly what I want to hear from people...

Thanks!:)
 
I would say polyfidelity has a lot of commitment; RA (Relationship Anarchy) has no commitment at all. Or that's my understanding.
I think that's true according to the traditional definition of commitment (e.g. exclusivity, obligations, practical life-sharing). However, one of the items in the RA manifesto is "customize your commitments": "...designing your own commitments with the people around you, and freeing them from norms dictating that certain types of commitments are a requirement for love to be real, or that some commitments like raising children or moving in together have to be driven by certain kinds of feelings." So if you have a flexible take on commitment, being RA and having committed relationships don't have to contradict each other.

Of course, when your version of commitment is highly unconventional, whether it counts as commitment or not can be a personal or semantic issue. For example, like InsaneMystic, I believe either party in a relationship should be free to leave any time for any reason, and they should only stay together because they genuinely enjoy the relationship. InsaneMystic calls this "uncommitted," but to me it's still a form of commitment in its own right.
 
Good points, Eponine.

@ polyexplorer ... the greatest weakness in the institution of marriage, in my opinion, is its component of commitment. Married people make promises to each other, and a promise is a presumption to predict the future. No one can predict the future without a time machine.

I guess you could alternatively define a promise as a statement of intention: "This is what I intend to do, even if I don't know whether I'll do it for the rest of my life." Some say that's a commitment, others say it's not committed enough.

I don't personally put a lot of weight in the value of commitment, but my V companions put a lot of weight in it and I respect that. I have made promises to them even though I technically know I can't predict the future. I am willing to reassure them with my promises. Some say that's dishonest of me, but the promises I've made will probably be pretty easy to keep.

You'll have to let your own ethical criteria guide you in deciding which promises to make, or if you should make any promises at all. No one can make that choice for you. If you make a promise, the best you can do is be careful what you promise, not making quick assumptions about the future.

People make mistakes and covenants are broken at times. If that weren't true, there'd be no such thing as divorce.
 
Thanks for all your comments so far. It has actually been really helpful for me. I have not come across the concept of Relational Anarchy before, and reflecting on this has helped!

So I have been reflecting on what I would want to commit to a relationship and what I would not want to commit. Here's what I have come up with so far, and I'm happy for people to throw in their 2 cents worth too:D

I could commit to someone being a significant part of my life and to have their well-being at heart as much as is possible for me to do so. This is intentionally vague, but it does mean that the person I am committing to have a very high priority in my life and any decisions that I make regarding my life will take into serious consideration as to how these decisions affect them. This is not something that I would commit to for just anyone, but only for a partner type of relationship...

As people have already commented, we can't see the future, so I could not commit to always being together with someone in a relationship. Sometimes love means letting go or moving on...

For me it's important to know what I feel I can and can't commit to in a relationship, so this process has been helpful... Thanks:)
 
Of course, when your version of commitment is highly unconventional, whether it counts as commitment or not can be a personal or semantic issue. For example, like InsaneMystic, I believe either party in a relationship should be free to leave any time for any reason, and they should only stay together because they genuinely enjoy the relationship. InsaneMystic calls this "uncommitted," but to me it's still a form of commitment in its own right.
I guess one could call me committed to the principle of treating a partner with love, honesty, and respect, for as long as the relationship is agreed on to continue.

I'd still say I'm not committed to the person themselves, nor to the continuation of the relationship.
 
. . . one could call me committed to the principle of treating a partner with love, honesty, and respect, for as long as the relationship is agreed on to continue.

I'd still say I'm not committed to the person themselves, nor to the continuation of the relationship.
I could commit to someone being a significant part of my life and to have their well-being at heart as much as is possible for me to do so. This is intentionally vague, but it does mean that the person I am committing to have a very high priority in my life and any decisions that I make regarding my life will take into serious consideration as to how these decisions affect them. This is not something that I would commit to for just anyone, but only for a partner type of relationship...
. . . one of the items in the RA manifesto is "customize your commitments": "...designing your own commitments with the people around you, and freeing them from norms dictating that certain types of commitments are a requirement for love to be real . . ."

. . . I believe either party in a relationship should be free to leave any time for any reason, and they should only stay together because they genuinely enjoy the relationship. InsaneMystic calls this "uncommitted," but to me it's still a form of commitment in its own right.
I enjoyed reading the above and am in agreement with most of the ideas expressed. All of the posts I quoted are primarily in alignment with what I meant when I posted this:
If I commit to giving and nurturing my partner in the best way possible, to be there for them through thick and thin, and to always have their back, that could also include letting the relationship go if that was what was needed for the person to thrive and be healthy emotionally. I do not need them to be tethered to me for me to love, encourage, and support them. It's not about running away when it suits me but looking at how a relationship has evolved and seeing if there is a need to part company. If a relationship ends, it isn't necessarily a failure or lack of commitment -- it could be exactly what the relationship needed.

However, I don't see the kinds of commitment I wrote about as reserved exclusively for "partner-type relationships," as Polyexplorer describes. I am solo and don't want any kind of life partner.

My commitments to be truthful, giving, nurturing, and supportive to people I get involved with would apply to whatever level of lover I have in my life, even FWBs. So, I am perfectly willing to commit to these things with another person - and to commit to upholding my personal boundaries so that I feel respected, valued, heard, etc. - I'm just not going to commit to an entwined partnership.
 
Last edited:
For me, commitment is a way of promising to myself and my partner that I will do what it takes to make the relationship work, even when things get hard. The commitment is to sticking it out to the extent that that's healthy (obviously, the commitment would end if it became unhealthy or unworkable).

Clearly, commitment in poly isn't so much about "you're my one and only", as it tends to be in mono. But it does say "you're special to me and I want you in my life for the long term".

It makes me feel more secure in my relationship to know that my partner and I are on the path to commitment (which will someday take the form of a ceremony of some kind), and that we've both made promises to make the relationship important, and to make decisions, at least in part, that will strengthen the relationship.
 
I guess one could call me committed to the principle of treating a partner with love, honesty, and respect, for as long as the relationship is agreed on to continue.

I'd still say I'm not committed to the person themselves, nor to the continuation of the relationship.
My idea of commitment to the continuation of the relationship isn't "till death do us part," but the intention to maintain the relationship as long as it's still rewarding to everyone. This means we all know we won't leave the relationship on a whim or for arbitrary reasons (e.g. another partner's veto - not that we'd agree to that kind of hierarchy in the first place though). Although I know my SOs have the freedom to walk away any time, I have the security that it's very unlikely to happen as long as our relationships continue as they are. This, to me, is commitment. :)

However, I don't see the kinds of commitment I wrote about as reserved exclusively for "partner-type relationships," as Polyexplorer describes. I am solo and don't want any kind of life partner.
Absolutely. Two of my SOs are solo poly and our relationships can't be further from life partnerships, but we're nonetheless committed on an emotional level (whether they consider it "commitment" is another thing though - again, semantics :p).
 
Last edited:
One could argue that commitment can change over time, but then is it really commitment if one can chop and change it at any time?

Having been in a monogamous (now open) marriage for the first 15 years, I'll say that we have indeed chopped and changed our agreement of our commitment's details, which is exactly why we are still married. If we had not taken the option to chop and change, we'd have divorced by now. Our chopping and changing is the very thing that allows us to continue on as a committed couple. I actually don't see much difference between the values in my marriage and InsaneMystic's relationship agreements. Commitment based upon complete freedom. My experience is that this combo makes for some very happy and satifactory years together, however many years they end up being:
For me, remaining free and allowing the other person(s) to remain free is absolutely neccessary to remain in a healthy, loving mindset... I need the certainty that it will be perfectly okay for everyone involved to get up and leave at any time, for any reason. So yeah, I'm very much uncommitted. Doesn't stop me at all from being in a close, loving, and stable 'ship for over six years and running. :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the thoughts so far. It has been really good to hear these and they are helping to shape my own attitude, thoughts and feelings towards commitment in relationships...

A part of me feels deeply that commitment in some form is important, but I also recognise the need for freedom at the same time. These also are not mutually exclusive things either. Being committed to a significant relationship while allowing freedom is something I will be aspiring to in my future relationships... Thank-you:)
 
Commitment is really just articulated intention. It doesn't literally bind us to ideas or promises - we all have the freedom to change our minds and re-negotiate (or simply disregard) even legally binding obligations. By its nature commitment is "for now" no matter how dramatically we frame it as "forever" or "til death us do part."

The way commitment works for me is to clarify the importance of values and relationships in my life, right now. Reminding myself of what I choose to commit to helps me focus on what matters, what's mission critical vs. noise and distraction. When declaring commitment to others, my hope is to reassure them that they are important to me and that I intend to support whatever relationship or other joint interests we have. Yes, it's limited by what I know and feel today, but it tells them they are *welcome* and *appreciated* in my life. I find that comforting, and that's why I share the idea of commitment with my loved ones.
 
Huge questions, but important ones. I think I have to agree with the majority of people who said "it depends."

Part of what it depends on, though, is the definition of commitment. I suppose that there are many ways of looking at commitment. Is it terms of monogamy? Of not falling in love with another person? Or not having sex with another person? Of not doing either of those things without consent? Or is it in terms of something else?

I can only speak to my own relationship, but there are three of us who are very committed to one another. A. is my legal husband and C. is our life partner. We are committed to one another emotionally and sexually, but A. and I are committed on a different level.

We live together as a family and share household finances, but, for us commitment is also financial and legal. A. and I do have a deep financial and legal commitment. If we were to buy property, for example, it would more than likely be A. and I on the deed. I expect A. to support me when I retire (he's younger) just as I have supported him through lots of schooling and unemployment. He and I have all shared accounts and file our taxes together, etc. C. is coming from a little different place. Being younger, he is mostly supported by us, but still wants to explore the world and do more things on his own. If we were to all get married, we probably would, but C. will need more freedom in certain ways.

I guess I didn't really answer your question as much as give you more questions and provide a personal example.
 
Back
Top