Relationship transitions?

[MsEmotional]

Does anyone have advice for how to navigate relationship transitions within a polycule? Such as break-ups, moving away, etc?

My husband's partner of about 3 months is moving out of state and I know that he is nervous about doing distance. I am nervous too! I am nervous that there will be tension in their relationship that I will feel obligated to help resolve. I am nervous that it will change his expectations around when/how often I see my boyfriend. I am nervous that he will feel lonely and depressed and that I will feel obligated to spend more time with him to take care of his needs.

I was hoping he would be interested in doing some more dating locally while Ginger is away. But it sounds like he is polysaturated and more interested in making things work long-distance with Ginger. That's fine, but I sense that he is expecting this to be really hard -- and without some fun distraction I worry about him.

Any advice for navigating distance? Or in general for the partners of couples who are going through relationship changes? I want to be good to him but I also want to set healthy boundaries and not feel 100% responsible for helping him cope.

 

[kdt26417]

Hi MsEmotional,

In my experience, long-distance relationships are extremely difficult, and I do not recommend them. However, your husband is making a conscious decision to attempt an LDR, and as an autonomous adult, that is his privilege and his responsibility. I would keep your involvement in that affair down to a minimum, be sympathetic but don't try to swoop in and rescue him from his decision. Let him work through his own emotions, difficult as they may be. He is choosing them as an extension of his choice to try an LDR. He can always change his mind and break up with Ginger, or at least put that relationship on the back burner. It's what I would recommend if he asked me.

I'm not saying you should be cold toward him or unsympathetic. But keep it in perspective, and set reasonable limits on how much you will do to make up for the difficulties he will face. Avoid that feeling of obligation as much as you can. Don't compromise your relationship with your boyfriend. Lend your husband a listening ear and a shoulder to cry on, but let him deal with the lion's share of his feelings. I assume he would not want someone else to hold his hand all the time. Does that make sense?

Respects/regards,
Kevin T.

 

[vinsanity0]

It's really not your obligation to fix him or his relationship.

I was dating a girl whose bf was thinking his wife was going to leave him. I asked if she was worried that he would expect more of her time. She told me she already told him not to...lol. So just be an adult and tell him his relationships don't affect yours.

 

[anamikanon]

I think it is natural to give and expect support from a partner in a rough time.

It is hard to imagine how missing her would mean he takes up more of your time. Generally people who miss would be obsessing over messaging/calls or moping and coping and generally coming to terms. People aren't that replaceable that her being missing would simply be filled by more of you (or he wouldn't go through the extra effort to keep that relationship alive).

What are really your concerns here?

I am nervous that it will change his expectations around when/how often I see my boyfriend.

That he will resent your established relationships if he doesn't have his partner around? If he is petty in such a manner, you have bigger problems in the relationship than him missing his partner.

Does your agreement allow him this sort of arbitrary change of rules? (If it does, should probably be reviewed anyway)

I am nervous that he will feel lonely and depressed and that I will feel obligated to spend more time with him to take care of his needs.

Do you find him uninteresting that caring for him in a rough time is an obligation? Again, this would imply bigger problems in your relationship with him.

I was hoping he would be interested in doing some more dating locally while Ginger is away. But it sounds like he is polysaturated and more interested in making things work long-distance with Ginger. That's fine, but I sense that he is expecting this to be really hard -- and without some fun distraction I worry about him.

If he is really attached to Ginger, it will be hard, of course. Has he indicated that he expects you to be a drop in replacement or are you simply imagining that he must have a specific amount of time with a partner, and if one is missing, it is your responsibility somehow to make sure it happens by suggesting distractions or martyring yourself? Sounds like he isn't looking to replace her with anyone new for sure.

Any advice for navigating distance?

They will figure it out. I've been in a 3 year LDR with Spexy including excellent and terrible times, and we mostly interact on chat. He travels here often. Once a month at least for anything from 2 to 7 days. It feels more like he goes to another city for work, because he is very much a part of the home here, not just visiting. Others have different ways of handling it. Some spend several weeks or months of the year together It is for them to figure out how much and what kind of contact they need and can make happen. I don't think he will appreciate suggestions at this point - at least till he is done missing her and exhausting his own ideas for her. (Or perhaps I mean I wouldn't)

Or in general for the partners of couples who are going through relationship changes? I want to be good to him but I also want to set healthy boundaries and not feel 100% responsible for helping him cope.

Has he asked you for help in coping? The way I see it, he will be headed for a rough time. With a partner soon going missing and his wife flinching from the idea of giving him more attention.

At this point, I'd suggest that you don't anticipate problems, so that your reluctance to be there for him isn't so .... evident. He may not even need your help, but it could add to his hurt to see you preparing to dodge before he's asked.

He is an adult. Romantic relationships are not the only way to cope with missing a partner. He'll figure it out. He'll need to mourn for a while. Then adapt to the new form his relationship with Ginger is taking. He'll figure it out. He can ask for help if he wants it. You can refuse if you don't want to. It is that simple on your end. You don't have to be involved in his love life with other partners if you don't want to.

 

[MsEmotional]

Thanks anamikanon.

A little backstory on this particular situation, although I had asked the question in the hope that I would get more general answers about navigating transitions in general....

First off, it's neither here nor there but just to clarify I probably should have specified that Ginger goes by he/him pronouns.

Anyhoo, my husband and I opened up our relationship around June. I very quickly found and fell in love with my boyfriend, Ponytail. At first, scheduling dates and getting together was complicated because we have two young children and my husband wasn't comfortable with them meeting Ponytail yet. Around the time that my kids first met Ponytail, my husband's friendship with Ginger developed into more of a relationship and, across the board, things got easier to schedule and negotiate because there was better parity when it cane to negotiating childcare and making plans for the week that met both our needs. He could spend the night with Ginger and his kids and Ponytail and I could take care of my kids and then still spend have private time together after they were in bed. Nobody was solo-parenting little kids and everyone got an overnight with an OSO. When Glasses was talking to me about his fears around Ginger's departure, he brought up that he liked the dynamic we had built when we were both seeing someone else and that he was worried about how that dynamic would change when we went back to it just being me who was seeing someone (in person).

So I guess what I am saying is that I am certainly not averse to spending more time with my husband, and it's not about him having the ability to change the "rules" -- more that I am worried about how our dynamic will change in more subtle ways. i know that I am happy to do childcare when Glasses is on a date because I know that he does the same for me. But it is the kind of thing that could shift if it was always one-sided. and if he's always around the house when Ponytail comes over (as opposed to being out with Ginger) that might put a strain on the relationship between the two of them.

I should add that Glasses and Ponytail have a weird relationship dynamic. They have been sexually attracted to one another (and engaged in threesomes together with me early on after they met each other) but are not really romantically interested in each other or even necesssarily compatible as friends. This causes tension because there is sexual interest and not really any friendship or anything. (Which is super confusing to me because I cannot really be attracted to someone I wouldn't be at least friends with....) I have been trying to avoid putting them in positions where they have to be social with one another and so nights when Glasses was over at Ginger's place were really helpful for getting time alone with Ponytail without intruding on Glasses' personal space. (We have a very small house.)

 

[anamikanon]

Ah. That explains much. This upends all the scheduling in a way, because Glasses not having a partner means you will not have as much privacy with Ponytail, plus will force Glasses and Ponytail together socially.

Short of Glasses finding another partner with a place he can go to for sleepovers, seems you are going to need a place you and Ponytail can be together in. Plus kids. Ouch.

I hear you on the difficulty with Ponytail and Glasses being together. I too don't really get the sexually attracted but not even friends sort of thing, but if it is happening.... awkward.

 

[PolyNatural]

Does anyone have advice for how to navigate relationship transitions within a polycule? Such as break-ups, moving away, etc?

My husband's partner of about 3 months is moving out of state and I know that he is nervous about doing distance. I am nervous too! I am nervous that there will be tension in their relationship that I will feel obligated to help resolve.

A core principle of a poly relationship is the idea that multiple partners can strengthen rather than weaken a relationship. That means that there should be a natural caring and sharing between you all that helps each other resolve or adapt to new situations. However if you're not "feeling the love" so to speak, and feeling "obligated" rather than naturally wanting to maintain your own relationship with "your husband's partner", then the situation isn't really polyamorous as much as you're your husband's wife and she's his mistress.

 

[icesong]

However if you're not "feeling the love" so to speak, and feeling "obligated" rather than naturally wanting to maintain your own relationship with "your husband's partner", then the situation isn't really polyamorous as much as you're your husband's wife and she's his mistress.

Erm. No. I am polyamorous, as are my relationships. I don't feel obligated OR have any particular desire to be close to my metamours - they're lovely people who make my partners happy and that's all I need them to be, they don't need to be my friends or "in a relationship" with me. Not everyone does heavily-entangled-poly...

 

[Ravenscroft]

A core principle of a poly relationship

According to whom?

there should be a natural caring and sharing between you all that helps each other resolve or adapt to new situations.

Nah; nonsense.

if you're not "feeling the love" ... then the situation isn't really polyamorous as much as you're your husband's wife and she's his mistress.

Ludicrous. You appear to be prescribing a heavily Romanticized form of group marriage.

 

[PolyNatural]

Erm. No. I am polyamorous, as are my relationships.

If you're legally married in a place where marriage is defined in some way or another as a union of two people to the exclusion of all others, then there's no way to objectively substantiate the claim that you're in a polyamorous relationship. But I don't know the particulars of your marriage. Maybe it's something informal where you've created your own poly vows and haven't made any mono religious covenant or legally binding agreement ( such as a marriage certificate ) that stipulates that your relationship is in fact mono ( as opposed to some self-serving opinion that it's otherwise ),

I don't feel obligated OR have any particular desire to be close to my metamours - they're lovely people who make my partners happy and that's all I need them to be, they don't need to be my friends or "in a relationship" with me. Not everyone does heavily-entangled-poly...

There's a difference between "heavily entangled" and interrelated enough to have meaning in each others lives. If there's no meaningful interrelation then everyone is just a number in everyone else's directory, and that's swinging, not polyamory.

 

[PolyNatural]

According to whom?

Already discussed, maybe on another thread. It's common in the reference material and in the symbolism.

Nah; nonsense.

That's just a hand wave.

Ludicrous. You appear to be prescribing a heavily Romanticized form of group marriage.

Polyamory doesn't need to have anything to do with marriage, and indeed, there are sound reasons for the two concepts to be seen as mutually exclusive. Easton and Hardy say that if they had their way they'd do away with it altogether. I'm in agreement.

 

[vinsanity0]

If you're legally married in a place where marriage is defined in some way or another as a union of two people to the exclusion of all others, then there's no way to objectively substantiate the claim that you're in a polyamorous relationship. But I don't know the particulars of your marriage. Maybe it's something informal where you've created your own poly vows and haven't made any mono religious covenant or legally binding agreement ( such as a marriage certificate ) that stipulates that your relationship is in fact mono ( as opposed to some self-serving opinion that it's otherwise ),



There's a difference between "heavily entangled" and interrelated enough to have meaning in each others lives. If there's no meaningful interrelation then everyone is just a number in everyone else's directory, and that's swinging, not polyamory.

I think you need to do some more research. Swinging is having sex partners with no real attachment. Not hardly the same as having multiple loving relationships in which the various metamors have no real attachment with each other.

 

[icesong]

There's a difference between "heavily entangled" and interrelated enough to have meaning in each others lives. If there's no meaningful interrelation then everyone is just a number in everyone else's directory, and that's swinging, not polyamory.[/QUOTE]

No, it's not. My Artist is an intensely important emotional part of my life. His wife? relevant to me only to the extent that she affects him, and I'm not going to apologize for that or let anyone minimize our relationship because of that.

 

[PolyNatural]

I think you need to do some more research. Swinging is having sex partners with no real attachment. Not hardly the same as having multiple loving relationships in which the various metamors have no real attachment with each other.

I have done plenty of reading and cross referencing and although your assumption is fairly common, it's not universal, and there are views about swinging that don't preclude individual connections that go beyond superficial sex. Superficial sex with whoever is more closely related to hookup culture. Swingers can be nobody special or well known. The only common denominator that separates swinging from poly is the non-interrelatedness of the members in someone's contact list. Once there's meaningful interrelatedness there's pretty much no question the line has been crossed into polyamory." Here's just one example of many I found that indicates that emotional connections in swinging can happen.

"Although swinging couples often become close friends with other swinging couples, there are rules restricting emotional involvement with non-spousal partners. That said, the relationships that form between couples can easily and often become as emotionally complex as that of the married partners." Source​

 

[MsEmotional]

However if you're not "feeling the love" so to speak, and feeling "obligated" rather than naturally wanting to maintain your own relationship with "your husband's partner", then the situation isn't really polyamorous as much as you're your husband's wife and she's his mistress.

Whuh? Why would I want to maintain a relationship with my husband's partner? I have only met him a few times. We have no relationship. They are the ones who are in love and it is their relationship to maintain (or not). My only role here is in supporting my husband as he navigates a change to long distance.

 

[PolyNatural]

Whuh? Why would I want to maintain a relationship with my husband's partner? I have only met him a few times. We have no relationship. They are the ones who are in love and it is their relationship to maintain (or not). My only role here is in supporting my husband as he navigates a change to long distance.

OK. it seems we're having a communication problem based on interpretations about concepts and the assumptions about how they might apply. I'll try another approach. If you are supporting your husband with his long distance relationship with somebody else, then you are a part of that relationship as well because you're putting your energy into it.

If you don't want anything to do with that relationship, then take a hands-off approach and let your husband figure out his long distance problem for himself, and just carry-on managing your own relationships. It's not up to him to decide for you how much time to spend with your "boyfriend" unless you've agreed to let him do that or he's involved in that relationship with you, and I'm guessing neither is the case.

 

[vinsanity0]

I have done plenty of reading and cross referencing and although your assumption is fairly common, it's not universal, and there are views about swinging that don't preclude individual connections that go beyond superficial sex. Superficial sex with whoever is more closely related to hookup culture. Swingers can be nobody special or well known. The only common denominator that separates swinging from poly is the non-interrelatedness of the members in someone's contact list. Once there's meaningful interrelatedness there's pretty much no question the line has been crossed into polyamory." Here's just one example of many I found that indicates that emotional connections in swinging can happen.

"Although swinging couples often become close friends with other swinging couples, there are rules restricting emotional involvement with non-spousal partners. That said, the relationships that form between couples can easily and often become as emotionally complex as that of the married partners." Source​

Having many friends who are swingers, I assure you that those friendships rarely reach the level of polyamory. Those friendships are predicated on the fact that all participants feel secure that their spousal partners will not fall in love with a non-spousal partner. If that rule is broken, the whole thing will most likely collapse. Emotionally complex relationships do not equal polyamory.

 

[PolyNatural]

Having many friends who are swingers, I assure you that those friendships rarely reach the level of polyamory. Those friendships are predicated on the fact that all participants feel secure that their spousal partners will not fall in love with a non-spousal partner. If that rule is broken, the whole thing will most likely collapse. Complex relationships do not equal polyamory.

The phrase is "emotionally complex" not simply "complex" and there's a difference between "in-love" and "loving". Poly people don't have to be "in-love", and both poly people and swingers can have "loving relationships", but on the swinger's side of the equation that spectrum continues off into superficially sexual relationships as well. So in identifying the demarcation point, the clearly defined difference appears to be in the degree of interrelatedness between those in the directory. Once that happens on an emotional level, it becomes poly ( many loves etc. ) instead of today it's Joe or Jane and tomorrow it's Jodie or Bob.

 

[vinsanity0]

I edited it just for you

I have friends that I love, and have emotionally complex relationships with, that I don't consider romantic partners. We just have a deep friendship. A discussion of the difference between "love" and "in love" is just silly. Besides, I wasn't talking about poly people. I was talking about swingers.

 

[PolyNatural]

I edited it just for you

I have friends that I love, and have emotionally complex relationships with, that I don't consider romantic partners. We just have a deep friendship. A discussion of the difference between "love" and "in love" is just silly. Besides, I wasn't talking about poly people. I was talking about swingers.

You're the one that brought being "in love" as a point relevant to the discussion, so if it's silly, then why did you bother mentioning it in the first place?