Is polyamory by choice or not?

I've written a couple of responses.

However, as they deviate from the OP premise "choose one or the other, but NOT the WRONG one" theme :p, I have put them in their own thread.

FWIW, this thread is in the wrong forum. As it has NOTHING to do with a given relationship, or even Poly Relationships in general, it properly belongs under General Poly Discussions.

:rolleyes:
 
According to my recent observations on the forum, there seems to be two types of poly people:
-those who are poly by choice
-those who are poly because they are

You keep coming at things "either/or."

I think sometimes it can be "both/and." One can feel polyamorous on the inside. As in, capable of loving more than one. AND they could choose to be single and not participate in any dating or relationship models sometimes. AND they could choose to participate in poly, swinging, monogamy, kink -- whatever relationship shapes is they choose to get themselves into other times. They are even free to pick ill-fitting things if they want.

But how other people are and what they choose to do doesn't really answer who YOU are and what YOU want to be doing at this time. Only you can answer that.

So I don't think going off on tangents will bring any clarity for your situation. Because you have specific problems to solve.

And then, if poly is a choice, how can you explain I can't be contented in a monogamous relationship and would rather choose to be if I could?

I have greyed out the poly part. Because what matters is YOU.

You sound like you are looking for the "reason" why you are unhappy. To me feelings ensue after behavior.

If I stick my hand on a hot stove? (behavior) I get a burned hand and feel pain. (result)

If you choose to participate in monogamous things you do not actually want? (behavior) You are not happy doing that behavior because this isn't what you want. (result)

You DO have a choice. You can STOP participating/behaving like that. See if new feelings ensue.

How can mono relationships even be considered as successful (happy) if it's a choice (therefore choosing to be happy)?

People that are happy in monogamous relationships WANT monogamous relationships. Their odds for happiness are greater because they are at least "starting out in the right store." It is possible for people to want monogamy, and seek out a monogamous relationship and wind up not happy. Because simply "shopping at the right store" is not enough. There are other factors to deep compatibility. But it helps to start out initially compatible so there's more of a chance at happiness.

You are looking for non-monogamy from inside a monogamous marriage. You are shopping for something that isn't even sold here. Expecting happiness there? Might not be realistic or even likely. Your wife seems pretty firm on what she wants.

All relating is a choice to me. In fact, several layered choices.

For my spouse and I to be together?

  • I have to choose to want to be partnered. (general)
  • I have to choose to be partnered to him. (specific)
  • He has to choose to want to be partnered. (general)
  • He has to choose to be partnered to me. (specific.)

All those have to line up for it to happen. I can want to be partnered AND want to be partnered to him and he can want to be partnered. But if he doesn't want that partner to be me? The thing still isn't going to fly. And even if all the initial toggles line up... if we are not ALSO deeply compatible in other ways, it won't fly very long. It won't be deeply compatible.

I could be wrong but you seem to have these "toggles" from your other post:
  • You want to be partnered. (In general. Because you fear being alone.)
  • You don't necessarily want to be partnered with Wife. You care about her, but the marriage is meh. And you do not want monogamy.
  • You don't want to cheat any more. DADT agreement kinda solves that, but you know wife still considers it cheating. So it is STILL not the kind of Open/non-mongamy you want to be doing. It's a "don't tell me when you go cheat" agreement. It is not a "We have an Open marriage, I'm cool with it. Just don't me telling me about your other relationships" agreement. You are finding that this distinction matters to you.
  • You don't necessarily want to be partnered with LDR GF. She thinks you are separated but you actually are not. She's also expecting eventual monogamy with HER. Which you are not keen on.

Basically you choose to do stuff you don't really want mostly to not end up alone. You aren't esp comfortable saying that "out loud" but it sounds like that's pretty much where it is.

Now you are trying to figure out what to do next.

You were hoping to have a "soft exit" -- to leave wife for LDR GF and skip the being alone part and go practice nonmongamy with the new GF. But sounds like the LDR GF also expects eventual monogamy. So... Wrong kind of GF for the soft exit plan.

The choices I can see are:

1) End it with wife and LDR GF and plump for actual non-monogamy (which you want) + Being alone for a while as you heal and then date again (which is the part you don't like about this choice. Being alone for a while.)

2) Skip being alone (which you like) + stick with a meh marriage (which you do not want.)

3) Skip being alone (which you like) + stick with a LDR GF who eventually wants monogamy (which you do not want.)

4) Find an open/poly GF person to do the "soft exit" with + so you do not have to be alone while breaking up with wife.

You would have to be more honest with this one -- that you are in a mess, and trying to break out and seek more honest/authentic non-monogamy. To make this easier you might break up with the LDR GF first. REDUCE the mess some.​

Which stinks least? To make your life easier you could just grey out the choices that you just don't want. That gets rid of 2 and 3.

I would plump for 1 because it sorts things out faster.

4 would take longer to do than 1. And who you attract to that sort of murky situation? Might not be a healthy person. And the wife is still getting the short of the stick all this time.

So I would say the first choice is the least stinky and the most healthy at this time.

(Healthy relating) or (unhealthy relating) are behavior choices people can do. Happiness is a potential outcome. I think healthy relating is more conducive to happiness. Not guaranteed, but more likely end up happy doing healthy relating than doing unhealthy relating.

If you are being honest with yourself? I don't think you have a healthy marriage and I don't think the LDR GF relationhip is esp healthy either.

You don't seem to have a healthy relationship with yourself if you do stuff you don't really want to be doing. You could firm that up.

I want to have a serious debate about this, because I think it's going to help me finding clear answers to my questioning.

I don't think anyone can debate you because (what you really want) and (what you are actually willing to do to achieve it) and (how ethical you want to be WHILE achieving it) are things you have to sort out FOR YOURSELF.

You seem to be moving toward wanting more honesty and more authenticity. If so? Start practicing it even if it feels hard.

Stop going around and around in circles with it. You are trying to find the "win" choice in here, when really it is more like "All the choices stink. Which one stinks the least?"

I would say... pay the price of admission and go for choice 1. Be alone for a while, clean up your life, and then start looking for non-monogamy again but more honest and up front this time.

And if not that? Then choice 4, but do get ON with it. Change your life and change your way of going so you have a better chance at happiness.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
OP you should man up and do the right things in your relationships before you start worrying about semantics.

Right now you are being very unethical with both the women in your life. If you truly cared about them you wouldn't be stringing these women along.
 
Galagirl, thanks for your lenghty reply; it's still messy, and there are a lot of people still misunderstanding me (I intended to leave A for B, not to enter non-mono), but I think I got this for now.

Ravenscroft, I saw your other post and replied in it... and I realize and agree this thread doesn't belong here, but I hope I won't get flamed for that.

I noticed a lot of people (the majority) find that polyamory is a choice. Fine.
But as it seems for me(, PurpleSun, and Vinsanity0), I think there could be more. Could there be a term to define such people that think there is no better choice than to enter polyamorous relationships? I know there isn't, but if there was, could we all agree on one? I think that being part of this community means that we have the responsibility to define ourselves, in order to engage more people in our conversation, recognize ourselves between poly people, and for people outside of the community to accept and understand us the way we are.

What do you think?
 
Thank you for clarifying that. You intended to leave wife for the GF and do monogamy with the GF... and now you find that you don't want that after all.

Still seems to end up at you having to figure out what you want to be doing now that you figured out that you want some sort of nonmonogamy. You wish you could be happy in a monogamous marriage but you aren't. So now you want to try to ....?

Could there be a term to define such people that think there is no better choice than to enter polyamorous relationships? I know there isn't, but if there was, could we all agree on one?

Until someone coins better words I make do with these. Maybe they help you get enough of a handle on it so you can move forward in figuring the rest of your stuff out.

The words below are about "love style" to me. People just love how the love.

  • There is monoamorous -- the desire or capacity to love 1 sweetie
  • There is polyamorous -- the desire or capacity to love more than 1 sweetie
  • There can be people who feel either/both. Call them love style flexible, I guess.

The words below are about "relationship style" to me.

  • There's monogamous. The desire to be in a 1:1 relationship -- just those two people.

  • There's polygamous. The desire to be in a relationship shape that is more than 2 people. Be it MMM, FFF, MFM, quads, networks or whatever it is. (Some of those have additional names. Polyandry is MFM. Polygyny is FMF. Dictionaries have them as forms of marriage but I think the people don't necessarily have to be married for the word to apply. The words give enough of an idea.)

  • Then there are people who are ok being in either relationship shape. Call them relationship shape flexible.

So a person has "toggles."

Now here is why I don't think there will be word coinage for each kind any time soon. Just too many words. The first is Person A and the second is Person B.

  • (monoamorous+ monogamous) with (monoamorous + monogamous)
  • (monoamorous + monogamous) with (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (monoamorous + monogamous) with (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible)
  • (monoamorous + monogamous) with (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (monoamorous + monogamous) with (polyamorous + polygamous)

  • (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible) with (monoamorous+ monogamous)
  • (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible) with (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible) with (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible)
  • (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible) with (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible) with (polyamorous + polygamous)

  • (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible) with (monoamorous+ monogamous)
  • (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible) with (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible) with (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible)
  • (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible) with (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible)with (polyamorous + polygamous)

  • (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible) with (monoamorous+ monogamous)
  • (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible) with (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible)with (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible)
  • (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible) with (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible)with (polyamorous + polygamous)

  • (polyamorous + polygamous) with (monoamorous+ monogamous)
  • (polyamorous + polygamous) with (monoamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (polyamorous + polygamous) with (lovestyle flexible + relationship shape flexible)
  • (polyamorous + polygamous) with (polyamorous + relationship shape flexible)
  • (polyamorous + polygamous) with (polyamorous + polygamous)

The ones in dark green have 2 toggles in common. It might be the easiest on those pairings since they appear to have initial compatibility. No guarantees about deep compatibility, but it's a start.

The ones in light green have at least 1 toggle in common. I think those pairings will have the next easiest time.

The others? Not toggles in common. But the black ones have at least one of them flexible in something, so they might be able to manage despite not having initial compatibility. The flexible one might feel more of a pinch or a higher burden. Not impossible to work out, but neither is it a green or dark green start for initial compatibility.

A couple that is one of these:



  • (monoamorous + monogamous) with (polyamorous + polygamous)
  • (polyamorous + polygamous) with (monoamorous + monogamous)


are fundamentally incompatible from the starting gate. They have NO toggles in common and it is just too big a gap to bridge. They have very different love styles AND very different relationship styles. Those are red, stop, don't go there to me. It is highly unlikely to find deep compatibility in a place where there isn't even initial compatibility.

I don't know if thinking about it that way helps you any.

I think that being part of this community means that we have the responsibility to define ourselves, in order to engage more people in our conversation, recognize ourselves between poly people, and for people outside of the community to accept and understand us the way we are.

I think it is a nice thought, but people can participate on this forum without doing any of that work. People outside this forum are not obligated to accept or understand anything poly related. I think it is more important to do that stuff with self and with whoever it is you are trying to date/relationship with. There I think it matters more. To know your own self, to know your partner(s).

Like I don't want to be that tight with my grocery store clerk. See her every week for years, but I don't know details about her lover style or relationship style. She doesn't know mine. So? We don't have to know those things about each other in order to be polite enough and interact in the grocery store. Just like people on this forum don't have to know personal details in order to interact here politely enough.

But in my personal relationships? Be really weird to be married to my spouse for decades and NOT know myself well or know him well.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Until someone coins better words I make do with these.
I like where you've gone with that typology. Maybe I've overlooked something, but I feel that it doesn't cover a widespread instance, specifically where a person/couple sees themselves as totally happy with a one-to-one relationship day-to-day, BUT see no inherent conflict with (for example) occasional sex with others. Swinging, prostitutes, mistresses, one-night stands are okay because they're "nothing serious" compared to the actual marriage.

The result, of course, is that -- as so many have misdefined polyamory to emphasize the sex -- people who were apparently quite content in the "nothing serious" practice get into all sorts of difficulty when they try to wedge their preexisting notions into polyamory, running face-first into "developing feelings" that threaten The Sacred Dyad.

I was raised such that I've never intuitively grasped the "one-&-only" mindset, so at first glance I'd never have paused to think that, if a marriage is stable & trusting enough to accept sex with others, it wouldn't be readily capable of also accepting emotional connection.
 
I like where you've gone with that typology. Maybe I've overlooked something, but I feel that it doesn't cover a widespread instance, specifically where a person/couple sees themselves as totally happy with a one-to-one relationship day-to-day, BUT see no inherent conflict with (for example) occasional sex with others. Swinging, prostitutes, mistresses, one-night stands are okay because they're "nothing serious" compared to the actual marriage.

I like the term "monogamish" for that.
 
I like where you've gone with that typology. Maybe I've overlooked something, but I feel that it doesn't cover a widespread instance, specifically where a person/couple sees themselves as totally happy with a one-to-one relationship day-to-day, BUT see no inherent conflict with (for example) occasional sex with others.

I like the term "monogamish" for that.

This is pretty much where my partners stand. They're monogamous with me... but see no problem in occasionally "playing" with each other with me, or potentially without my involvement. However, they're not "in" a relationship with each other, nor do either of them have any great desire to date or explore sexually outside of our closed V.
 
I like where you've gone with that typology. Maybe I've overlooked something, but I feel that it doesn't cover a widespread instance, specifically where a person/couple sees themselves as totally happy with a one-to-one relationship day-to-day, BUT see no inherent conflict with (for example) occasional sex with others. Swinging, prostitutes, mistresses, one-night stands are okay because they're "nothing serious" compared to the actual marriage.

I guess that could be covered with the the potential toggle of (monosexual / flex-sexual / polysexual) The first being a desire to share sex with just 1 person, and the last a desire to share sex with more than 1 person (not necessarily group sex.)

Like there could be a person who is monoamorousl (share love with only 1) but polysexual (ok sharing sex with more than 1).

Then there's be the flexible people on the middle setting of that toggle -- who are ok with either/both.

Same with a kink toggle, if there needs to be one. Those who are up for kink, not up for kink, could go either way.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Not a prob, Ravenscroft. I didn't take it like "bringing me up short." I was thinking you were trying to ask OP to consider what all their toggles are. Like if they had other important areas to think about. Maybe they also have a "kink" toggle. Or a "do I want kids?" toggle and so on.

I'm still going to stress not getting hung up on "perfect words," JapinaTricycle. Make do with whatever words are close enough.

Esp if seeking the "perfect words" is going to get in the way of you actually sorting yourself out, knowing your own self well, knowing what it you want/seek in relationships.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Back
Top