Unicorns & Unicorn Hunters - Merged Threads, General Discussion

[hyperskeptic]

It's important to understand the order of events. First, there were people who looked to "complete" their relationship with a very specific type of woman, with virtually unattainable characteristics. Often, they disrespected the autonomy of the woman they were seeking. Who gets to decide that disrespecting someone's autonomy is deplorable? I do. And I'm in good company. So first these people were out there doing this thing. It was only when they reached a critical mass that other people went, "Wow, this is really a 'thing.' Let's give them all a name so that we can refer to them more easily. They're looking for something imaginary. Unicorns are imaginary. Let's say they're hunting unicorns."

It simply wasn't the case that first there were these women out there looking for couples to date, and they were like, "Hey, you know who else likes to date couples? Unicorns. So I'm going to call myself a unicorn, because that means someone who likes to date couples." No. Unicorns are just horses with magical poles sticking out of their foreheads.

Perfect!

And, yes, you are in good company in judging disrespect for autonomy to be deplorable. I also agree that each of us is entitled to make such judgments, and that such judgments cannot be dismissed in the name of some easy relativism, i.e., "But I've thought about it for a long time, and it's what I waaaant!"

Sure, I keep holding myself back from saying to them, "You can do what you want, but you are bound to acknowledge that others can make choices of their own, and you are bound to respect their freedom to make choices that don't align with your desires, even if, and I don't grant this at all, your desires are well considered."

As seems to be the case with others here, the language used by unicorn hunters makes my skin crawl. My pet peeve of the week is the locution "our special lady," which showed up yet again in a personal ad from yet another perfect couple seeking someone to complete them.

"Girl" is demeaning enough, but "lady" is especially loaded, culturally; both of them are quite distinct from "woman," which implies maturity, self-possession, independence . . . autonomy.

"Our" . . . don't even get me started. As if their "one true (other) love" is out there, destined to be with them, if only they could find her. As if she belongs to them, like "our" house or "our" car.

Then there's "special", the non-specific honorific, which somehow manages to be saccharine and bland at the same time. It may here serve to reinforce the cultural baggage of "lady" - a precious thing to be treasured and protected and, above all, owned.

Okay, now my skin is crawling and my gorge is rising. Time to think about other things!

 

[Natja]

My favourite* one recently, was "Looking for a sweet girl who is tender hearted," younger than them, and specifically said, she need not even BE bisexual, as long as she is "ready and willing to be a full part of our sex lives. This is mostly directed to the man so there is no need to be bi at all." And finally, "Hope to hear from our girl soon."

Just... no. Needless to say, they don't want children, they are middle-aged and want a younger partner.


*as in, worst ever...

 

[Natja]

That's not to say I have anything against middle-aged people without kids, btw, it is just the patronising, sex-object way the profile was written that gets my goat.

 

[Emm]

Other bits I find irritating:

• When they add something along the lines of "we've been looking forever but there are no real poly women out there" because any woman who isn't throwing herself at them is obviously not really poly and couldn't possibly have been turned off by their approach.
• When they ask why they're having so much trouble finding their special real poly lady, then brush off every attempt made to show them where they could improve their chances.
• When they try to prove they're not unicorn hunters by telling us about all the other (invariably short-lived) relationships they've had with previous unicorns, then blame all the previous break-ups on the unicorn, rather than realising that they're the common factor in the equation.

I'm sure I'll think of more.

Edit: Ooooh! The big one:

• The female in the couple isn't actually bisexual, but she's less squicked out by the thought of being involved with another woman than he is by the thought of being involved with another man, so they're going to try sharing a girlfriend she'll have no actual interest in beyond, possibly, friendship.

 

[FullofLove1052]

My favourite* one recently, was "Looking for a sweet girl who is "tender hearted," younger than them, and specifically said, she need not even BE bisexual, as long as she is "ready and willing to be a full part of our sex lives. This is mostly directed to the man, so there is no need to be bi at all." and finally, "Hope to hear from our girl soon."

The delivery and presentation are all wrong. Surely they cannot believe that ad would attract anyone... right?

 

[Natja]

The delivery and presentation are all wrong. Surely they cannot believe that ad would attract anyone... right?

Of course they do, why wouldn't they? It is what attracts them, and surely they are allowed to look for whatever they want, because they know what works best for their relationship... And of course, they don't mind waiting until their perfect girl comes along.

 

[FullofLove1052]

Of course they do, why wouldn't they? It is what attracts them and surely they are allowed to look for whatever they want, because they know what works best for their relationship. And of course, they don't mind waiting until their perfect girl comes along.

Cringe-worthy. I know people have preferences, but there is nothing appealing about that.

 

[Emm]

Which brings us back to both the first and second points in my list.

 

[Magdlyn]

The delivery and presentation are all wrong. Surely they cannot believe that ad would attract anyone, right?

Ry, have you spent any time at all reading our "Personals" ad forum? All the ads similar to that. There is a huge volume of them. Just scan down the titles of the ad threads. Reading the actual ads is even funnier, if you want a laugh.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=13

Members here are not allowed to address anyone on that forum unless we are the unicorns interested in one of the couples. We are not allowed to set them straight on what is wrong with their hunt. So, all those ads there go unanswered. Do the couples there wonder why they get nothing but the sound of crickets to their ads?

A mod once told me that this board, in its early days, was flooded with these kinds of ads in the Intros section. So, the admins created a forum for the ads. It's basically a garbage dump.

 

[Magdlyn]

Now I find this enlightening, all this talk about triads and unicorn hunters. So many terms for me, a newbie to learn. But what I come away from this, is that everyone just wants to make everyone else feel loved in the relationship. Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? I mean, when someone in your circle looks at you, don't you want to feel loved, wanted and respected? It seems to me that open communication is always the key and you should never do what you don't want to do or be "pushed" into being anything you don't want to be. We haven't found our "other," and don't know who it will be, whether it's a man, a woman or a couple. We aren't in any hurry and if it happens, it happens.

Personally, though, I hate titles and just think you should be free to love, like, feel affection for anyone you choose.

Hi, new person. Of course we are all free to feel love for whomever we choose. That is the foundation of polyamory. This thread's purpose is to point out what is wrong with the statement of yours above that I bolded. Not to personally attack you. But, having read this thread, you still don't see what is wrong when a couple say: "WE are looking for OUR other"? If you don't get it, there are probably other unicorn hunters reading here who also don't get it.

Sigh...

Read this article to see the pitfalls of being a woman trying to have a relationship with a couple. (And if you think your "special lady" will be fully equal, i.e., co-primary, not a secondary, when the couple involved already has a house, mortgage, kids, years of shared history, etc., you're wrong. She will be a secondary for years to come, or until the breakup happens. People can be very territorial.)

http://www.morethantwo.com/polyforsecondaries.html

 

[hyperskeptic]

A mod once told me that this board, in its early days, was flooded with these kinds of ads in the Intros section. So, the admins created a forum for the ads. It's basically a garbage dump.

As easy as it is to laugh and to rage at unicorn hunters, there's something ineffably sad about this image: a garbage dump where certain kinds of poly dreams go to die.

<sigh>

 

[Magdlyn]

Also from morethantwo, an article for would-be unicorns about the pitfalls of dating a couple:

http://www.morethantwo.com/coupledating.html

- Be very skeptical of couples who say things like "We only want someone who will date both of us" or "We expect someone to have the same feelings for both of us." It's generally neither reasonable nor possible to expect relationships with two different people to develop at the same rate and in the same way; there are many people who try to make this happen, but it very rarely works. This combines two of the most common poly mistakes--trying to force relationships to fit a predefined shape, and expecting different relationships to develop the same way--into one.

Worse, some couples try to use this as a way to avoid dealing with jealousy or insecurity, naively believing that if both members of the couple are dating the same person, then nobody will feel "left out," and therefore nobody will feel jealous. In reality, it doesn't work that way; jealousy, like all emotional responses, is rarely rational, and does not often give way to rational thoughts like "Well, I'm having sex with her too, so I shouldn't feel jealous if he has sex with her!"

Don't assume that it's necessary to develop a relationship with both people in a couple in exactly the same way; relationships grow on their own, and no two relationships are ever the same, anyway. Doing this may impose unrealistic expectations on you; even if you were to date identical twins, it would be reasonable to expect each relationship to develop differently! Remember, you may be dating a couple, but each person in that couple is still an individual.

The unicorn-hunting couples that come here are often so joined at the hip, they think they present a united front. They love each other madly, of course, as their unicorn will love both of them madly. They forget that "each person in the couple is still an individual," and "relationships grow on their own; no two relationships are ever the same"!

 

[RiverDwellers]

I guess this is where you lose me. I feel that any relationship takes work, whether it is "unicorn" or (for lack of a better term) "regular polyamory." Never would I expect anyone to like or love my husband or me equally. Respect goes all the way around to everyone included. I fully understand that this person may fall deeply in love with me, and not care so much for him, and vice versa. So many combinations you could go with here.

And you are right, we have years of history under our belt. I am not sure how that is a bad thing. I wasn't looking for my husband when I found him, it just turned out to be a wondrous thing.

Don't we all feel around in the dark on new relationships, no matter the makeup of it? I keep reading about the failure of these "unicorn" relationships, but it makes it sound like no other relationships fail, only these. We all know that is not true. We keep trying, though.

And let me be clear when I talk about the kind of person I would like in our relationship. Because whether I am just friends, or he is just friends with someone else, WE are a couple. Nothing changes that, whether he finds someone he clicks with or I do. So when I say WE would like someone that we click with, it is how it is meant. Because he and I like so many of the same things, it is not hard to believe that someone out there holds many of the same interests. Just as an example, we (there's that word again) are not bar people, don't go to them, don't like the noise. Nature (camping, hiking, wildlife) is one of the best places to be, in my opinion. So naturally, neither of us would want someone/someones who are strictly city people, have never camped, are not open to camping.

I think that we (meaning the world) are looking for someone we can take close to our hearts, and very rarely are you going to find that in someone who is not at least somewhat like-minded.

 

[Natja]

I keep reading about the failure of these "unicorn" relationships, but it makes it sound like no other relationships fail, only these. We all know that is not true. We keep trying though.

No it doesn't, we have had plenty of other types of polyamorous configurations fail, and some open couples fail, and some monogamous types leave their partners.

It is just the reasons for the failing of unicorn relationships are so consistent, very much unlike all the other relationships. If there were some variations, that would be different. But no, they tend to go through the same cycles over and over again.

And let me be clear when I talk about the kind of person I would like in our relationship

Because he and I like so many of the same things

*sigh* but you are still separate people.

So naturally, neither of us would want [strictly city people]....

Is it so hard to imagine that one of you might want to do something SHE (HE/THEY) were interested in, and not just what you are both jointly interested in?

I think that we (meaning the world) are looking for someone we can take close to our hearts.

Why do you need to date as a couple at all?

 

[RiverDwellers]

You are right, we are separate people. He is a little more intelligent than I am and definitely better spoken. He is talented in music and art, whereas I like to do paint by numbers. I like to play games and read fiction, him, not so much. I guess I am not being so clear on my point, so I will let it go.

It is not hard to imagine that one of us might do something separate from the other. We've talked about it and found what would work best for us.

Why do we need to date as a couple? Good question. We want to. Simple as that. I know that doesn't seem to fit the status quo here, but it is what it is. I would be lying to say otherwise.

 

[Natja]

Why do we need to date as a couple? Good question. We want to. Simple as that. I know that doesn't seem to fit the status quo here, but it is what it is. I would be lying to say otherwise.

It's less that it isn't the status quo and more that it isn't the status quo for a really good reason. It is not very sustainable.

 

[Dagferi]

http://tacit.livejournal.com/578925.html

A good article on couple privilege.

Couple dating is a prime example. The whole we, our, etc., labeling of a main couple is putting that relationship on a pedestal.

 

[WhatHappened]

I look at how most of these couples describe themselves, and it sounds... perfect. "Still madly in love, open communication, been married 16 years to my university sweetheart, love to cuddle, love to take long walks on the beach, have exactly 2.5 children, a dog, and we just need a third/woman to complete us and our family." With all of that gushing happiness and perfection, who needs more?

Actually, I have the same reaction to some of the OKC profiles for poly guys looking for individual girlfriends. Same story--madly in love, love of my life, perfect, amazing children, perfect family, etc.

My reaction is, if your life and wife are already that perfect, what exactly are you expecting from me? And why in the world would you want to take any time away from such perfection for anyone else? To me, it comes across as shopping for a living, breathing sex toy.

 

[LovingRadiance]

Why do we need to date as a couple? Good question. We want to. Simple as that. I know that doesn't seem to fit the status quo here, but it is what it is. I would be lying to say otherwise.

Since you asked:

There's nothing wrong with deciding that. It does mean accepting that you have now limited the pool of opportunity yet again. When looking for someone who is poly, you've dropped to less than 2% of the population. Now, if you are looking in that pool for someone who also falls for both of you, that is less than 2% of that 2% of the population.

Whereas, if you simply each look for someone who A) falls for one of you and B) is willing to be respectful of your existing wonderful relationship, you have only limited yourself to maybe 75% of that 2% of the population. The chances are greater.

The other part of it is this: what does the "we" have to offer the single person? What are the limitations they are expected to meet in order to be a part of the we?

Ideally, they should be free to have what each of you, as individuals, has. As an example: each of you has 2 partners (each other and them), therefore they should be free to have 2 partners. Okay, that was easy. But each of you has each other as a primary who shares finances, life history, etc. They should also be free to have a primary like that, which neither of you would be. So that would mean them being free to date someone else. (Far too often, unicorn hunters want a closed triad, which means the new person has only them.)

Anyway, I'm not inclined to keep going.

I'm all for "it worked out for us," but seeking and searching for anyone specific requires doing the educational work to understand what it takes to actually attract that person. Additionally, creating healthy relationships requires considering the healthy needs/desires of all parties, and how to meet them.

 

[FullofLove1052]

I read quite a few of the personals. Sweet baby Jesus in a onesie, there are a lot of couples seeking the same thing. I was surprised that some are even seeking that hot bisexual man, too. I had read a few that were in the intros section and were later moved to the personals, but I had never looked at the personals section. They were all along the same lines.

I am just amazed that so many people believe it is some groundbreaking type of dynamic, and that seeking such an arrangement will be positively seamless and delightfully perfect. Well, it might be... until they post here two months later about how the girlfriend is more into one of them than the other, jealousy issues, how the husband/girlfriend's dyad is now a booming source of insecurity, how the husband feels left out, etc.