Starting out "full poly" vs. opening up slowly

M

MeeraReed

Well-known member
This issue came up on another thread, but I wanted to talk about it here (as the other thread was getting derailed).


I've noticed a couple times lately that a newish-to-poly person is struggling with their partner's approach to poly in a new relationship--feeling that the partner is going too fast, too soon, even though the OP wants to be poly too. In these cases, it's a fairly new relationship that started with both partners wanting to be poly or non-monogamous (not a monogamous relationship being opened later).

Those of us offering advice soon stumbled into a sort of debate. Some people suggested that a new relationship needs time to become stable and intimate before anyone should be seeking others to date. Other posters pointed out that you can start off being poly/open right away, and it's not necessarily a problem, it's just a more autonomous and less hierarchical way to do poly.

Of course, there is no one right way to practice polyamory, and every relationship might be different. But I wanted to hear about people's experiences with both/either approach.

For me, the biggest issue is that if you slowly open a relationship (rather than starting out fully open), it creates a hierarchy with a "main couple" who get to be alone together, but then no future partners get that same privilege. No one who slowly builds up intimacy together will then break up temporarily in order allow a future partner to also build up that same one-on-one intimacy for a period, right?

I mean, no poly person who starts seeing someone who already has another relationship gets to slowly open up with them, so it doesn't quite make sense to me.

Personally, when I first started out doing ethical non-monogamy, I struggled for a long time, because there was so much advice out there about "opening up" relationships, and none describing how to just be poly right away.
 
MeeraReed said:
For me, the biggest issue is that if you slowly open a relationship (rather than starting out fully open), it creates a hierarchy with a "main couple" who get to be alone together, but then no future partners get that same privilege. No one who slowly builds up intimacy together will then break up temporarily in order allow a future partner to also build up that same one-on-one intimacy for a period, right?
Click to expand...

Honestly, this is one thing I disagree with. We started with a threesome. Legit, just a no-strings-attached, only as a group, threesome. We expected to have nothing more than maybe FWBs with others, basically, swinging.

But it freaking evolved from there, because we decided to not be afraid to let it. There is some "hierarchy," as in, I have a mortgage and legal marriage with one vs no legal entanglements with the other, but that is legit it. I'd have legal entanglements with both if my Canadian province would let me. They are, to me, 100% equal.

Also, we started out fully open. We didn't have a phase with a weird amount of rules. Z and I never broke up to figure this out. B and I never broke up to figure this out. We all grew together, and love blossomed, and honestly, I'm so happy with my life with them pretty much all the time. They are equal, to me. I am, for our polycule, married to both of them.

To paint everyone's starting point with a paintbrush that says "You started with A so you will only ever end with C" totally rules out human nature and people's ability to grow and evolve. Some people take a different route to come out of their shells. M used to exclusively be a unicorn when she first started down the poly pathway. Now she isn't, because she grew and evolved as a human.

To me, it's honestly like saying "The only way to learn how to swim is to be thrown in the pool," rather than "Learn to do a doggie paddle."

For those with issues around insecurity, or really ingrained monogamous views, it will take them a bit longer to get their footing and to adjust to how different poly is to mono.

I'm honestly just a major advocate for making sure we try to view things on an individual spectrum, rather than use a massive paintbrush.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
For me, it doesn't matter if a couple decides to go slowly or just jump right in. The issue is when people think one is obliged to go at the pace of the slowest person, effectively postponing their own desires until the other person is ready.
Click to expand...

Even then, I think it 100% depends on the situation. To say that going as fast as the slowest person is bad totally negates the fact that it really isn't for all dynamics. Opening up a mono relationship at the start has a different dynamic than poly people dating poly people.

The start, almost always, is not as smooth as the 'final product,' so to speak. Everyone has a learning curve. If postponing your desires for a few months is worth it to you, then why not?

Really, the problem is when people postpone basically indefinitely, or keep postponing because they refuse to do the work needed on themselves to create and facilitate growth. At the same time, both partners need to work to create that dialogue. One partner needs to work on themselves, and the other partner (honestly, BOTH partners) need to be able to say "Hey, what's going on? Where do we stand? These are my wants; these are my needs; are we compatible; can this be worked out?"

Going as fast as the slowest person, to me, implies that you're still going forward, not that you've stalled and aren't moving at all, if that makes sense.

Forward momentum, at a slow pace, if it is acceptable to the party being slowed, is okay. Stalling so that no change happens is not. One is both partners trying to find balance and security, while the other one partner trying to be controlling.
 
ElMango said:
Even then I think it 100% depends on the situation. TO say that going as fast as the slowest person is bad totally negates the fact that it really isn't for all dynamics. Opening up a mono relationship at the start has a different dynamic than poly people dating poly people.

The start almost always is not as smooth as the 'final product' so to speak. Everyone has a learning curve. If postponing your desires for a few months is worth it to you, then why not?

Really the problem is when people postpone basically indefinitely, or keep postponing because they refuse to do the work needed on themselves to create and facilitate growth. At the same time, both partners need to work to create that dialogue. One partner needs to work on themselves, and the other partner (honestly, BOTH partners) need to be able to say "hey, what's going on? Where do we stand? These are my wants, these are my needs, are we compatible, can this be worked out?"
Going as fast as the slowest person, to me, implies that you're still going forward. Not that you've stalled and aren't moving at all if that makes sense.

Forward momentum, at a slow pace, if it is acceptable to the party being slowed, is okay. Stalling so that no change happens is not. One is both parties trying to find a balance and security, the other is trying to be controlling.
Click to expand...

If you want to go at whatever pace, even if it's to match your partner, that's fine. I'm talking about when other people say you're obliged to go that slow.

But El Mango, I have to say that here is seems that you're very personal invested in a conclusion that validates you and so you're misreading my post. I literally just said it doesn't matter what individuals decide to do and you start your post by saying "TO say that going as fast as the slowest person is bad".

I'll repeat that my issue is when others (say like the members of this forum) insinuate that going at the pace of the slowest established partner is the right thing to do and what a good poly player would do. They imply that there is an obligation to do so as if sustaining that relationship has to be of more importance than having a relationship structure which makes you happiest.

In the last thread, the guy's reluctance to go at a slower pace was deemed as a
  • "kid in a candy store"
  • "dysfunctional"
  • therapy was suggested to "convince him" to go slower
  • "obsessed"
  • "NRE junkie"
  • "a boundary pusher"
  • accused of making her suffer just to be a kid in a candy store
  • "on the rebound"
  • has baggage

The equivalent of that would be to suggest the "go slow" person is controlling, selfish, abusive and needs therapy to get over their predatory ways.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
For me, it doesn't matter if a couple decides to go slowly or just jump right in. The issue is when people think one is obliged to go at the pace of the slowest person effectively postponing their own desires until the other person is ready.
Click to expand...

I think that’s a suggested courtesy as to not drown someone coming from a mono relationship. Because of the wide range of start points, and everyone’s individual comfort level within their own relationship, there is no definitive right or wrong way to open a relationship, in terms of speed.

I agree-- I don’t think anyone should feel obliged to postpone or slow down their own desires until their partner is ready. But then, don’t be upset when the relationship fails.

Baptism by fire might be a quick and effective method of finding out who’s truly got the stomach for this and who doesn’t. It could be a huge time saver in the long run. Perhaps discuss triggers and boundaries and then deliberately expose your partner to such things. Example:

The "slow partner" doesn’t want to see any PDAs in front of them. The "non-obligated to go slow" partner makes a little selfie video of themselves holding/cuddling their new partner, and sends it to the slow partner to watch and process on their own.

There are all sorts of things you could do to confront mental blocks. Another example:

“Our bed is sacred space" is one of the slow partner’s boundaries. Their partner shows the slow partner a little G-rated action on the sacred bed that happened weeks before, to demonstrate nothing bad happened and nobody died.

The old adage really would work in this case-- what doesn’t kill the relationship makes it stronger.

(Posts 4 and 5 didn’t exist when I posted, and I never really read that other thread. I’m going off the quoted statement.)
 
Last edited:
It seems to me it would be better to start out poly, because 1) You're testing if your relationship will work with poly, as opposed to testing whether you're good monogamous partners, 2) Fewer bad habits to break later when you're opening up. If you're already living poly, having casual FWBs, etc., it's probably a good idea to make some time for them, even in NRE, so this poly-beginning will just happen.

What speaks against it is the 'natural' desire to spend as much time as possible with the new partner. So if both are currently non-partnered, there might be a pull towards not dating anyone else for a while, which is okay, if both feel the same. I envision most friction occurring when this desire is declining on different timelines for the two people. After all, that's a point of friction for monogamous relationships too. Nothing new under the sun.

If two people without any poly experience agree on a poly relationship, even it they do so at the beginning, that's just a case of "opening up" with all the usual insecurities.

Those are my thoughts, but I don't have any personal experience to back them up.
 
Last edited:
In that thread, the guy is poly and the OP is monogam-ish, at best. It is a fairly new relationship. The OP wants to establish a mono relationship before playing around. The poly guy may not be up for that.

When I am actively dating, I don't wait before dating others. Time dictates everything. At this point I will only date poly people, so there should be no issues, other than people claiming to be poly who actually aren't.
 
ElMango said:
This is one thing I disagree with. We started with a threesome. Legit, no strings attached, only as a group threesome. We expected nothing more than to have maybe FWBs with others, basically, swinging.

It evolved from there because we decided to not be afraid to let it. And although there was some "hierarchy" as in, I have a mortgage and legal marriage with one vs no legal entanglements with the other, that is legit it. I'd have legal entanglements with both if my province let me. They are, to me, 100% equal. [No] weird amount of rules phase. We all grew together, love blossomed, I'm so happy with my life with them. They are equal to me. I am, for our polycule, married to both of them.
Click to expand...

You are not seeing the difference. In your case it happened organically. You didn't set out to open up and figure having a threesome was the only way to do so. The conventional poly wisdom is that couples who go on a hunt for a third will typically fail. The way it worked out for you is generally considered the best (for that configuration).
 
IMO, do what feels right for you and the situation. Personally, I would not start juggling chainsaws until I'd slowly worked my up from simpler, safer items!
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
If you want to go at whatever pace, even if it's to match your partner, that's fine. I'm talking about when other people say you're obliged to go that slow.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%.

El Mango, here it seems that you're very personal invested in a conclusion that validates you, and so you're misreading my post. I literally just said it doesn't matter what individuals decide to do, and you start your post by saying, "To say that going as fast as the slowest person is bad."
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I misread your post. I reread it and I definitely did. I apologize. That caused my answer to be incorrect in the context you provided. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I did not intend to use it as validation, and I see how it looked that way in context.

The equivalent of that would be to suggest the "go slow" person is controlling, selfish, abusive and needs therapy to get over their predatory ways.
Click to expand...

I agree.
vinsanity0 said:
You are not seeing the difference. In your case it happened organically. You didn't set out to open up and figure having a threesome was the only way to do so. The conventional poly wisdom is that couples who go on a hunt for a third will typically fail. The way it worked out for you is generally considered the best (for that configuration).
Click to expand...

I agree. I definitely had my reading context wrong for that. I see my error.

What I meant to say was to assume people mean, by 'proper,' to be saying it is 'proper' for EVERYONE as opposed to 'proper' for them, isn't necessarily the best idea, and we can always ask for clarification before making a judgement call and giving advice based on our call. That should definitely include no matter the assumption you made, and I know I need to get better with that.
central said:
IMO, do what feels right for you and the situation. Personally, I would not start juggling chainsaws until I'd slowly worked my up from simpler, safer items!
Click to expand...
I agree with this analogy.
 
When you said this:

... isn't necessarily the best idea. We can always ask for clarification before making a judgement call and giving advice based on our call.
Click to expand...

I was asking if you meant that I should pose a question like I did here:

"Do it properly. Start with kink nights, a bit of swinging, threesomes in which we both invite someone to our bed and are also the third with a couple."
Who said this was the proper way to do things?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I was asking you to reread the thread, because you obviously overlooked that I did ask for clarification. But the OP responded by saying:

SEASONEDpoly, you've made your point: you like to do things differently and have a different perspective from me. I don't know why you keep coming in with comments like these. They are not constructive to my cause and are not welcome. Frankly, they come off like you are seeking validation for yourself.
Click to expand...

And then they progressed to calling me a troll.

If you read the thread, you'll see the progression from conversation to lashing out. Some of it was because the other poly people didn't highlight that his way is a perfectly valid way. Instead they used those terms I quoted previously, which reinforces the idea that he was bad at poly rather than bad for her. Then here am I, saying that this guy who broke her heart isn't the inconsiderate dog that he's being made out to be.
 
If you read the thread, you'll see the progression from conversation to lashing out. Some of it was because the other poly people didn't highlight that his way is a perfectly valid way. Instead they used those terms I quoted previously, which reinforces the idea that he was bad at poly rather than bad for her. Then here am I saying that this guy who broke her heart isn't the inconsiderate dog that he's being made out to be.
Click to expand...

I did reread it, but that doesn't really answer my question: why ask me to reread it? I literally said you were right, I was being biased, and I am sorry for that. I also explained that I was explaining it from my interpretation of the posts, and I should have asked for clarification first.

This is kind of what I mean by tone. It honestly feels like you're trying to 'drive the point home' and it feels very finger-waggy.
 
Last edited:
ElMango said:
I did reread it, but that doesn't really answer my question: why ask me to reread it? I literally said you were right, I was being biased, and I am sorry for that. I also explained that I was explaining it from my interpretation of the posts, and I should have asked for clarification first.

This is kind of what I mean by tone. It honestly feels like you're trying to 'drive the point home' and it feels very finger-waggy.
Click to expand...


Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that people (including me) should have clarified with the OP of the thread. Sorry.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that people (including me) should have clarified with the OP of the thread. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I meant in all threads, not just the OP's thread, we (as in all users, including you and me, but in the end, EVERYONE) should get clarification on something we might be biased about. Is X situation something that could have been written poorly? More as a general rule for just interactions on, especially emotional, threads. We all misunderstand things, misread things; sometimes taking that pause and making sure we've got it right can make all of our advice better and in the end, more tactful and meaningful.
 
For reference, for those unfamiliar with the other thread being discussed, it is: Open vs Poly
 
kdt26417 said:
For reference, for those unfamiliar with the other thread being discussed, it is: Open vs Poly
Click to expand...
Thanks. Unfortunately, i already found it by searching, i think it would be helpful to include in the first post :)

Also, that thread was a kind of trainwreck. Personally i started to wonder what was *his* story. It's often quite different in difficult relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top