Build Your Own Adventure

sunray

New member
I realized today (in the shower, where I do a lot of my best thinking) that one of my needs in relationship is to be able to consciously co-create my relationship with a partner. I need to be able to engage with someone on that level, using tools like check-ins and 'state of the relationship' discussions, reflecting deeply and frequently about our feelings and behaviors, shaping at least some of what grows between us with intention. Or at the very least, when things have crept up on us, getting back to a point where we share a clear understanding of how things grew to be the way they are, and what we want to do next about it!

Currently, I have two partners who are both willing and/or comfortable with this methodology--hooray! But it came to me that this is actually *so* important to me that I don't think I would choose to pursue a relationship with someone who couldn't or wouldn't engage in that way.

Is that unusual? Or do other people in the polyverse feel the way I do?
 
It's really helpful to know what you want.

Why would such discussions / dissection help co-create a relationship ? Unless that the basis of the relationship. I guess what I'm thinking is I'd rather have a relationship than constantly talk about " the relationship " more along the lines if it ain't broke don't fix it.
 
Currently, I have two partners who are both willing and/or comfortable with this methodology--hooray! But it came to me that this is actually *so* important to me that I don't think I would choose to pursue a relationship with someone who couldn't or wouldn't engage in that way

Two quick clarifications if you are willing:
1. When you say relationship, I presume you are talking about a romantic/sexual coupling? Or are you also including non-sexual relationships that are meaningful?

2. When you say that you are not sure you would pursue a non-exploratory relationship like this, what does that look like? It sounds like you haven't actually experienced or practiced this yet, so I'm asking more how you see it playing out.​
 
Hi Marcus, of course!

Two quick clarifications if you are willing:
1. When you say relationship, I presume you are talking about a romantic/sexual coupling? Or are you also including non-sexual relationships that are meaningful?​


In this particular case, I'm talking about romantic/sexual relationships, yes. I think it's the pairing of romance and diving deep into this kind of emotional analysis that appeals to me, though, the sexual aspect is optional.

2. When you say that you are not sure you would pursue a non-exploratory relationship like this, what does that look like? It sounds like you haven't actually experienced or practiced this yet, so I'm asking more how you see it playing out.

My previous experience of a non-exploratory relationship, as you put it, was with someone who tended not to be in touch with her inner landscape much, and so oftentimes when we had problems in our relationship could only relate that she didn't know *why* something was a problem, it just was! And then unfortunately lacked the tools to figure it out, so would declare that there was no way to answer my questions. Alternatively, I could imagine a relationship in which a partner might be unwilling to communicate much about feelings or dynamics, preferring to 'go with the flow' and 'not overthink' things so as not to ruin the romance or mystique.
 
When our triad was running, my partners had both grown up with insecure fathers, which meant the expected range of grumbling & brooding that leaves a kid unsure if Dad's upset with them or just Life in general. By contrast, my Dad was generally a loud happy guy, ready with a joke or a story, & he literally knew most of the people in town & their family history, & I take after him (albeit a bit more laid-back. :D)

Yet Anne & Thraicie thrived with me. I explained my bad moods so that they didn't feel responsible. I voiced my thoughts & encouraged them to follow suit. We'd play simple word-association games -- something I learned from my first lover -- which on the surface were just amusement (we could keep it going while cooking or cleaning or folding laundry or whatever) but actually revealed interesting quirks about ourselves that led to some interesting deep discussions. (We'd also slip in words from the other languages we knew, & have to explain our reasoning. It was like a verbal Rorschach.) We were always reading & learning, & presenting each other with salient points we discovered. Even after we went our separate ways, we'd socialize & fall right back into the "finishing each other's sentences" habit, & wind up laughing.

What I mean is that, yes, it's possible, & IME it's great.

But remember that we were living together, we were a triad rather than a vee, & we had a busy social schedule. As well, we were a nude household &, summer or winter, would be naked within ten minutes of getting home -- unintentionally a symbolic demonstration to each other of our willingness to be open & vulnerable to each other on all levels. We had all studied the functioning of religious cults, & really did steal some of the techniques -- oddly perhaps, we never "loved bombed" each other or anyone else; a common statement of affection was to smile & say "I like you" or "you make me happy" or some such. Our disagreements were heartfelt, brief, welcoming of emotional reaction but firmly grounded in logic, & settled easily -- as passionate about life & ourselves & each other as we were, we saw no need to carry resentment.

It's intense, it requires intensity to get there, & intensity to maintain. Oh, not extreme pressure, but a low steady simmer.

Chances are that most of the people you meet won't have the skills -- most people are damaged. Many of them CAN be taught, can heal & quickly... though that would require someone with enough self-security & insight to teach them, right through the initial displays of fear & anger.

And I kinda get the feeling that, right now, you wouldn't want a "kit" but rather a "plug-&-play."

Nothing wrong with holding really high standards, of course, but it REALLY reduces the candidate pool.

The downside there, of course, is that those few with such requisite skills might feel much as do you, & would rather wait for someone with their experience level, who could slot right in with no ramp-up period.

Besides, how would you recognize the skill set? There's plenty of narcissists & sociopaths who can do a great job of faking it. If you (&/or your partner(s)) are already attracted enough to approach courtship, there's the risk that NRE will blind you to recognizing it as an act.
 
It's intense, it requires intensity to get there, & intensity to maintain. Oh, not extreme pressure, but a low steady simmer.
That's interesting... intensity isn't the first word I would choose. To me, it seems more like mindfulness/engagement. It definitely takes focus and awareness to maintain.
Chances are that most of the people you meet won't have the skills -- most people are damaged. Many of them CAN be taught, can heal & quickly... though that would require someone with enough self-security & insight to teach them, right through the initial displays of fear & anger.
Yes, that sounds right. My newer partner is in that learning phase right now, I believe. I'm not currently looking for a third partner, much less one who already likes to play things this way... because as you say, it would definitely be a small candidate pool. But I do think a willingness to learn and ability to develop skills meets my criteria just fine. My sticking point feels like it might be the willingness to engage--to spend some time and attention on relationship co-creation and think deeply and critically about it, even if I were the one to start the conversation most of the time.
Besides, how would you recognize the skill set? There's plenty of narcissists & sociopaths who can do a great job of faking it. If you (&/or your partner(s)) are already attracted enough to approach courtship, there's the risk that NRE will blind you to recognizing it as an act.
Now that's something to ponder!

Thanks for your thoughts and insight, much appreciated. :)
 
I'm definitely getting the impression in this thread that, if you DON'T choose or do not know how to relate this way (or are unwilling to try), you are less self-actualized, otherwise less "evolved."

I think it depends completely on the need of the individuals in the relationship. My husband and I have heart-to-heart talks on occasion, but it's the things we do with and FOR each other that lead me to believe that we were on the same page. When I offered to make my husband's friends snacks for his poker night/fight night on Saturday (even though I find boxing to be absolutely barbaric), his grateful response told me all I needed to know about our relationship at that exact moment.

I go with dingedheart. And I don't feel that makes me a "knuckle-dragger" on the relationship evolutionary scale.
 
I'm definitely getting the impression in this thread that, if you DON'T choose or do not know how to relate this way (or are unwilling to try), you are less self-actualized, otherwise less "evolved."
....I go with dingedheart. And I don't feel that makes me a "knuckle-dragger" on the relationship evolutionary scale.
No reason why you *should* feel that way, powerpuffgrl--no value judgements are implied here. I'm just exploring what it is that makes relationships work for me, and was curious whether anyone else had similar preferences to mine. Much like there ain't no One True Way to do poly, everyone's tastes are bound to differ! If I say that folks who don't relate this way may not be the ones I'd choose to date, that doesn't suggest they're 'less evolved'--just that they're less right for me. :)
 
I'm definitely getting the impression in this thread that, if you DON'T choose or do not know how to relate this way (or are unwilling to try), you are less self-actualized, otherwise less "evolved."
That, actually, has much more to do with YOU. ;) For instance, you don't see the implied "multilingual" or "Wiccan" stuff as superiorist. But, that's another day. :)

We had people who wanted to join our household & our relationship. Few lasted the weekend: they had fun, they remained lovers &/or friends, but they'd come to understand -- to grasp, at a visceral level -- that it'd take time & effort to "get up to speed," that they couldn't just drop right in. It was an actual lifestyle, not just a relational choice.
 
Hi sunray,

Your original post actually seemed to me like a description of how relationships in general are carried out, rather than a specific kind of relationships. Although you do seem to want to take those basic precepts to a deeper level. Personally I could go either way; I could have deep discussions about the relationships, or I could be happy with a relationship in which everyone seems to be contented. Deep discussions optional. Anyway that's my position.

Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
Back
Top