What are the signs that poly is NOT for you?

hetcurious19 said:
Ok, the first definition helps a lot to know what I DONT want. Poly people conceive a "unicorn" like that? wtf.
Click to expand...
Not all poly people treat their potential "thirds" like that, but if you read around the board, this often happens. There are many stories here from former unicorns who were treated like shit. That's why the idea of a couple "sharing a third" is so problematic. I mean, there are more reasons why. I didn't list all of them.
 
hetcurious19 said:
Ok, the first definition helps a lot to know what I DONT want. Poly people conceive a "unicorn" like that? wtf.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a definition, but unfortunately it's just a common pattern. The couple will never say it's like that, they will say they want to "add a third" who will be "equal". Form a closed triad. Than couple privilege - given partly by their "agreements", by their shared history, by habit - kicks in. It's hard to avoid even with best intentions. They have a shared home already that they spent time building, so of course it's not the two of them that will move, of course it's her, right? And now she wants major changes, but that's my stuff and it has been here forever, right? The two of us made it that way for reasons, right?
And now the relationship has developed for several months and it turns out she's in love with only one of us and doesn't want to date the other any more... I guess she wasn't a true unicorn, right?

(Btw. the couple privilege stuff is pretty universal even if people are dating separately and don't want to live all together, specifically with the living situation me and @Sisilisko can attest it's a battle for the newer partner.)
 
Magdlyn said:
Not all poly people treat their potential "thirds" like that, but if you read around the board, this often happens. There are many stories here from former unicorns who were treated like shit. That's why the idea of a couple "sharing a third" is so problematic. I mean, there are more reasons why. I didn't list all of them.
Click to expand...
I would like to know about those more reasons if possible. After reading the second response, I see that ego is the problem "And now she wants major changes, but that's my stuff and it has been here forever, right?" increased by the fact that it becomes a 2v1 situation.

The way I see it is this (even if hypotheticals don't replace being in the situation)-- I'm adding a person, a human being, to expand the love (both romantical and sexual) of my already existing couple, a person my partner and I sense a level of compatibility with. I already know that trouble will come sooner or later. I know that the third one has her own perceptions and rights in the triad. I'm confident that my attitude will make this as less tense as it can be, and it's the best approach I can have: recognize the other as a person.

PD: you guys are awesome. Thank you for your time.
 
hetcurious19 said:
I would like to know about those more reasons if possible.
Click to expand...
I think you've been linked "so someone called you a unicorn hunter", and you said you read only the last paragraph. You should make time for it, it does name some more reasons (possibly still not all of them).

There ARE successful triads, but most of them grow organically - out of one partner dating and eventually the "legs of the V" connect long too, or growing out of long-term friendships and already shared deep bonds going from close to sexual.

Seeing partners as human is definitely key, it's just that the structure of a couple dating as a "package deal" immediately introduces a power imbalance doesn't exactly help that.
 
Tinwen said:
I think you've been linked "so someone called you a unicorn hunter", and you said you read only the last paragraph. You should make time for it, it does name some more reasons (possibly still not all of them).

There ARE successful triads, but most of them grow organically - out of one partner dating and eventually the "legs of the V" connect long too, or growing out of long-term friendships and already shared deep bonds going from close to sexual.

Seeing partners as human is definitely key, it's just that the structure of a couple dating as a "package deal" immediately introduces a power imbalance doesn't exactly help that.
Click to expand...
That last paragraphs nails it. Now I just have to show my partner all of this lol
 
FiveThumbs said:
Do you mind elaborating? Maybe some examples of "being present" and also not.
Click to expand...

At a bare minimum, put down your phone and put it on silent, like you're at the movies. Give your full attention to the person you are with. Don't drift off. Actively listen, have a genuine, deep interest in what's being communicated. Don't redirect the conversation to make it about you again. For example, I had an ex who was happy to play me songs from his music collection but barely let anything I tried to share run over 20 seconds (it was the same genre). He dismissed my interests enough that it was a red flag.
 
Thank you, that's spot on. Device distraction is so unattractive, which is why I don't have a phone. I'm dismayed this has been a problem for you.
 
"Based"?

I do have a tablet I use for mobile connectivity, but I refuse to carry a phone. Nothing is so vital that I'd need that ball-and-chain on me at all times. In fact, 30 years ago we got by just fine without them.

But back to the point, being present, it's true there are ways to be distracted even without having the Internet in your pocket. I find keeping eye contact is helpful to be connected to whoever you're with.
 
FiveThumbs said:
"Based"?

I do have a tablet I use for mobile connectivity, but I refuse to carry a phone. Nothing is so vital that I'd need that ball-and-chain on me at all times. In fact, 30 years ago we got by just fine without them.

But back to the point, being present, it's true there are ways to be distracted even without having the Internet in your pocket. I find keeping eye contact is helpful to be connected to whoever you're with.
Click to expand...
"Based"

Gen Z Slang: Based Meaning - FamilyEducation


"Based" is a slang term used by Gen Z to signify someone who is confidently in alignment with their true beliefs, regardless of how controversial or unorthodox they might be. It often serves as a compliment for being unapologetically oneself.
 
"Confidently", "compliment", "unapologetic", I will take all these things as positives, thank you. But it should be clear from previous posts that I am SO far from Gen Z that maybe the term wouldn't apply to me.

Back on topic: I came here for insight into why nonmonogamy might NOT be for me. I'm having discussion with my partner about it, and I feel it IS for me, but she is steadfastly not willing to participate. Since everyone involved needs to be a willing participant, our conversation has included thinking about what it would be like to separate. We've been married and monogamous for over 35 years so this seems like a lot to think about. Neither of us want to separate, so I want to feel sure of myself before taking steps I might regret.
 
It might NOT be for you because you might not find anyone else who wants to date you. That would be a big drawback if you tossed in your marriage to try it.
 
FiveThumbs said:
"Confidently", "compliment", "unapologetic", I will take all these things as positives, thank you. But it should be clear from previous posts that I am SO far from Gen Z that maybe the term wouldn't apply to me.

Back on topic: I came here for insight into why nonmonogamy might NOT be for me. I'm having discussion with my partner about it, and I feel it IS for me, but she is steadfastly not willing to participate. Since everyone involved needs to be a willing participant, our conversation has included thinking about what it would be like to separate. We've been married and monogamous for over 35 years so this seems like a lot to think about. Neither of us want to separate, so I want to feel sure of myself before taking steps I might regret.
Click to expand...
If you're in for negative feedback, tell us about your reasons you want to be monogamous, and the forms of non-monogamous arrangemets you envision for yourself. Some of them will most likely be problematic ;)
 
Apologies to Het for kinda hijacking their thread. I feel like we're exploring the same issue at least. In a nutshell, we feel like we might want to explore nonmonogamy, but are concerned we might be mistaken. I've noticed this happens to humans... we concoct what seems like a great idea, only to discover the "unintended consequences."

Evie, you managed to pack so much in two short sentences. I'll try to be as brief:
-I do already have at least one person who says she wants to date me.
-But "tossing in" the marriage for it, that seems risky, even unethical.
So despite the flaw in your major premise, your conclusion is correct.

Tinwen, I can handle negative feedback, after all, that's why Het and I say we're here. I said I wondered "why nonmonogamy might NOT be for me" and if you unpack all the negatives, you could conclude I "want to be monogamous". But again, Het and I (to put words in mouths) say we want to know what we don't know. My current thinking is that I do not want to be monogamous. Why? I don't think human history nor biology supports the practice as sustainable. I've done it, I suppose due to social pressures, but the more I learn about ENM, the more that makes more sense.

If I were to enter the ENM world, it would be from a long term monogamous relationship, so my inclination would be to seek a non-hierarchical, solo, or even comet arrangement initially. Problematic? We are humans!! We're flawed.

Thank you both for engaging.
 
FiveThumbs said:
Apologies to Het for kinda hijacking their thread.
Click to expand...
forget abot hijacking bro, we are kinda on the same boat. Feel free to engage in the post. And yes, if easier to know what we are not to define what we are.

I thought of being poly not because monogamy isnt enough but because my partner is bi but we are DEFINETELY people who just "hang out" or "pick up", we are NOT fans of casual relationships, we both tried when we were single but we just care to much about people to use it as a simple toy or a "third one". And for myself, it wouldnt really make sense to me to chase after 100 bodies just to "experience", I dont really want to conquer and possess a body of my likeness no mather how much I like it at first glance; I even feel guilty of "looking" because I do like my partner in every possible aspect. And in the other hand I want to fulfill our desires not just mine, I want her to explore it herself, with me; is an us thing at a sexual and personal level (even thou I sometimes think is a validation thing as well)

Forget to add: I been rise in a heteropatriachal family, following gender roles I am satisfied to accomplish/take steps to accomplish even though I have been a passive, shy kid growing up and Im not the "manliest man" and I sometimes wonder if is just the "male biology" blurring my judgement.

Precisely to day I kinda shitted in my pants thinking about opening up to my partner about this and Im just scare I break something, but Ill try to put everything on a letter to make it clear and take responsability.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, yes, I feel like we have some things in common. One of them being, we're reluctant to jeopardize our "nesting" partnership. I feel like if your partner is bi already, then they pretty much by definition are already sleeping with you, as well as someone not your gender. If that's not already polyamory, I don't know what is, so I feel like you're on good footing having the conversation. Hopefully someone else with more experience will also advise.
 
FiveThumbs said:
If your partner is bi already, then they pretty much by definition are already sleeping with you, as well as someone not your gender.
Click to expand...
In the general public, most people are monogamous, at least outwardly. So if they are bi, and coupled up with a man, they are not likely to be "sleeping with" a woman at all. They are mono, so they only love and have sex with one other person.

But if your partner is bi and polyamorous, or polysexual, and dating you, a man, they might be dating a woman, or women, or other men.

If they are pansexual and poly, they might be dating you, and a woman, and a another man, and a transperson, and a non-binary person. It all depends on if they have the opportunity and luck to have met people they are attracted to.

Just because you feel bisexual doesn't mean you have to date two people, one of each gender.

Just because you are a heterosexual man doesn't mean you have to date multiple women. If you are a committed monogamist, you'd only date one woman at any one time (if you're lucky to find a good one). If you are a poly hetero man, you might date no women, one woman, or multiple women.
FiveThumbs said:
Hopefully someone else with more experience will also advise.
Click to expand...
To sum up, being bisexual does not automatically mean "I must date one person of each (binary) gender." It just means, "I am attracted to both genders." Being attracted to people is a feeling. You can't help feelings. Actually dating and/or having sex with more than one person of any gender you're attracted to is a choice, and choices are under your control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top