How to invite your wife into polyamory ?

Why in the world would a government utilize a "gay kit" to "stimulate homosexuality?" Maybe I lead a sheltered life, but I have never heard of such a thing.

The term is used in Brazil. BBC report - the “anti-homophobia kits” are termed “gay kits” in the vernacular.
 
Last edited:
The term is used in Brazil. BBC report - the “anti-homophobia kits” are termed “gay kits” in the vernacular.


Yeah at some point i thought it might be India, but Brazil sounds more likely. Now that i read some of the things OP posted along the way, it reminds me of the way my Brazilian friends and acquaintances speak and construct ideas into sentences. And the cultural/religious elements OP describes are also consistent with what i have gleaned from spending time with Brazilian-American individuals.

(We have a large community of Brazilians in the ethnically and nationally diverse city i live in.)
 
Last edited:
Yeah at some point i thought it might be India, but Brazil sounds more likely.

My personal experience (mostly through Brazilian women I’ve talked with) is that Brazil is a rather patriarchal culture as well. So this tallies. Still, I hesitate to put people into cultural or ethnic “boxes” as we are all individual.

However there are certainly cultural blinds spots we can simply be totally unware of. The habit Americans have of walking down the street and eating for instance would, at least until recently, have been considered very rude in Europe, yet most of the US tourists were blissfully unaware of this.

However the Brazilian carnival is a sight to behold!
 
Last edited:
Why in the world would a government utilize a "gay kit" to "stimulate homosexuality?" Maybe I lead a sheltered life, but I have never heard of such a thing.
The intention was probably not to stimulate homosexuality, but to make it acceptable as a sexual orientation by educating about it. While I don't believe education could lead to an actual change of sexual orientation (and I take LoveQuests description with a grain of salt), it could surely lead to both an increase in the number of coming outs, and to experimentation with homo/bisexual behaviour early on, which would be enough to elicit a backlash in the more conservative public.

I can say nothing about LoveQuest's claims about illegal finances and skewed courts, this may be the reality of his country or not. But I can say that his view of feminism disrupting traditional families is nothing uncommon amongst, say, people above 40 I know. That's just how it seems to those who value the traditional division of roles.

While I'm in agreement with the liberal values that this forum will mostly represent, the methods that feminists and/or liberals use to shift the social climate can be often rightfully criticised. The controversial topic of quotas for the number of women in leadership positions, political correctness, or inclusion of other genders, are being perceived as forceful and unfair, and lead to a counterproductive backlash. For those who do not share liberal values, or even those who do but would proceed otherwise, all this is seen as pushing an ideology.

Heck, I even had to defend the #metoo campaign (which I had cautiously joined) against my own mother today. She said it's just promoting fear and mistrust between men and women. While in contrast to her I'm sure it also has benefits, she has a valid point (and I did take care to stress in my own status that it's not a reproach to any of the vast majority of gentle, caring and often shy men I have among my fb friends).

I don't know WHY Love Quest won't document his country of origin, as certainly that kernel of information would not be enough to ID him. It sounds like this is a mix of cultural issues and his own rather skewed perception of things.
Some countries are small. I don't put my country out there - my info says central Europe, and I let you guess if it's Germany, Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Switzerland, or what, because giving out the county in Europe is almost like giving out a city in the US. Given OP's special situation - caregiver to a BPD wife, divorced, small kid - people who know him (from the BPD support communities he might be part of, or any polygroup he visits) might identify him really easily if he gets specific.

Anyway, I'm really curious too, and at least the continent/general region + dominant religion would be a big help :(
 
Last edited:
I'm impressed with how easy many posters here referred to "divorce" as an option. For most people here, divorce results in starvation of the kids. Both me and my wife have been short on food supply while we were kids, what could be avoided if our parents had succeeded in remaining as a unit. Psychological damage of a war between parents is also frightening. But my wife feels safe with me and would get offended if someone suggested a divorce for any "futile" reason such as going for a different arrangement (mono/poly). I understand though that in a rich country like US you make many times more money, unemployment is low and things are cheaper, so you can divorce by whatever reason you wish and then easily survive. It wouldn't be so easy if minimum wage was about 10 times lower.
I had a similar impression when I first came around this forum - that breaking up is suggested very easily. However, in time I came to understand why.
While the economical background certainly plays a role, there's two things to be considered besides economy:
  • First, (IMHO) lots of people have codependent tendencies, and talking or even thinking about breaking up is a bit of a taboo in relationships, or something inconceivable because of the pain. For them, the reminder that there always IS the option of breaking up and finding a more suitable partner is HEALTHY. Advice to consider this option goes against the natural human tendency to avoid pain in the short run, even if this pain could actually lead to a bigger gain later. (However, this is likely not your problem, LoveQuest.) Simply, most people will not jump to divorce just because they've been told it's an option, but they might easily forget it is one.
  • Second, the values of voluntary participation in relationships, of consent, of independence and personal responsibility are deeply ingrained in the basic philosophy of polyamory. "I’d rather be involved with a person who wants to be with me than a person who needs to be with me; the people who want to be with me are there because of the value I add to their lives, not because they have no other choice!" sais the famous more than two webside, and this thought is re-iterated over and over in various contexts*. People who are drawn to polyamory will generally value their own freedom of choice very highly, and put the well-being of the individual above the longevity of the relationship. They will resonate with the thought that we create our own lives rather than being victims of circumstance. They will be exactly the kind of person who (if possible) will maintain some financial independence even if happily married, not because they don't trust their partner, but because they feel it's their responsibility to be able to take care of themselves and their kids and be able to react even if everything goes very wrong. Seeing your participation in a relationship as a choice you make over and over again is perfectly in line with that.
Economic dependence of partners brings some hard to deal with problems with consent.
As for polyamory being a 'futile' reason to divorce, I think you can feel yourself that this topic runs very deep into your personality :) ... although not as deep as survival and feeding your children of course.

*This is not meant to be cruel. Of course, partners will need us, in sickness, for childcare, or in various other ways, and I do realize sometimes marriage is an economic necessity. On the webpage, the original citation refers to the ideal of being able to validate yourself.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Tinwen, for renewing those thoughts. It was on my mind yesterday.

I'd add a little elaboration. For one, unless nonmonogamy has been part of the conversation from the absolute beginning of the relationship, then its introduction -- as anything more than a private fantasy -- voids the implied contract, which needs at least major overhaul, if not to be scrapped & rebuilt. The old relationship is dead, & one or more of the people who agreed to it is gone. That doesn't mean they need to separate, rather that if they are going to remain together then the changes need to be recognized & incorporated in creating a new relationship.

And the "consent" thing. There's a vast difference between a "yes" (confident, if not joyous) & "maybe" or "I suppose..." or any such wobbliness that look more like mere assent.

Achieving actual consent requires that the person agreeing to something is NOT IN ANY WAY under duress: fear of loss, emotional insecurity, economic dependence, habitation, children, social standing, self-image, psychological issues. I'd contend that very few people raised in a monogamous culture are immediately free from all such doubts, & therefore are incapable of granting consent. Sure, they can probably LEARN to compensate in healthy ways, but they don't yet have the skills in any natural sense.
 
Still, I hesitate to put people into cultural or ethnic “boxes” as we are all individual.

However!

Of course that's true, but I still have yet to see a single speck of dirt inside a Brazilian home. I must suspect that there are Brazilian slobs out there somewhere, but they are like the Loch Ness Monster or the abominble snowman.

I admit, i have not been inside every Brazilian home, so i guess i should wait until i have been before i judge all Brazilians as being good housekeepers...:D
 
I don't think it really matters what country. Clearly he is coming from a conservative patriarchal point of view. He could just as easily be from the Bible Belt...lol
 
Achieving actual consent requires that the person agreeing to something is NOT IN ANY WAY under duress: fear of loss, emotional insecurity, economic dependence, habitation, children, social standing, self-image, psychological issues. I'd contend that very few people raised in a monogamous culture are immediately free from all such doubts, & therefore are incapable of granting consent.
Then, Ravenscroft, how would you realistically proceed in opening up a relationship?

I understand your point about these subtle fears hindering consent, but it seems that as your standard can't be met by most people it's not useful - as a standard. (Should be of course strived for as an ideal.)

There's a vast grey area between a psychologically healthy person giving enthusiastic/confident consent, and a person being under such duress that they don't see any other real option for themselves. (That would be where I draw the line.)

In that area, I tend to take a person's decision (including my own) as presented. Especially if they are aware of their reasons. (i.e. "I agree because I don't want to lose you" is still consent to me if said by an economically self-sufficient grown up, although I'd likely not be happy enough to act on it if it was MY partner saying this to me).

edit: Ok, I understand now that's what you call assent (had to look that word up). I still have no idea how you'd proceed in a situation where your partner is incapable of real consent.
edit2: I do realize this is deep and we should maybe take it elsewhere, but I kind of hope following these considerations will be useful to the OP. Anyway, I'm copying these into my blog too.
 
Last edited:
Fear of replacement...

LoveQuest, assuming best intentions, I understand your present challenge is that you would like your wife to form an informed opinion on polyamory, and understand her current rejection as a kneejerk black-and-white-thinking overreaction. You are willing to accept a no if you see that it has been thought through, but currently what you are getting is mostly a 'no, I won't even listen'.
Is this accurate?

That's mostly precise. Except that I don't know exactly what would "accept a no" mean in practice. This is not just a desire. It is a core need which won't simply be dissolved over time. Much like the need to have kids (which I have already accomplished). Hence I can shut up over the topic, but I can't stop thinking about it.

That's actually what's going on here. The topic isn't well-come at the moment to be talked directly, so I'm silent. I do not "persist in trying to convince/pressure/coerce her into changing her mind", as lunabunny said. Some have described possible reasons here, but the main reason is what I consider the most obvious one. It is the fear of loosing your loved one to someone else. Believing that your partner may choose to be with someone else over you, were this person eventually "replaces" your position, is actually a monogamous way of thinking, which requires a paradigm shift. She is open minded and usually curious about such different ideas. Though not if she gets triggered.

Right now, I need to be very careful with my words to prevent triggering such fear on her. Long time ago she was being very difficult and I made something which seemed logical and effective, but I now understand as a mistake, or at least not the best way of handling the problem. As a mix of childish behavior and blackmailing, she was doing many small things that were hurting me, such as sleeping in separate room and refusing to have sex just to "get her way" on something. Though it was all out of base with our reality (there weren't reasons for that), and it was all part of a big "anger theater". Thus I just told her that I expected her to be with me but if she kept up with that behavior, I would "find another woman". There, I too was thinking monogamous.

She is very quick to learn new fears, on a deep level, but has a hard time unlearning them.
 
I still have no idea how you'd proceed in a situation where your partner is incapable of real consent.
Really, neither do I. And that is a major sticking-point.

I am a self-aware person, sometimes kinda scary. :eek: I've been actively watching my own underlying motivations & reactions since the early 1970s & still regularly call myself to question. And to be truthful, I remain ALWAYS in doubt.

But, another topic, another day...
 
Ravenscroft and Tinwen - very interesting discussion about what constitutes consent (enthusiastic "yes", vs assent for purposes other than active desire, vs agreeing under duress).

Ref and Northhome - I assumed the OP was from one of the South Americans countries from the start of the thread, also due to patterns of verbalising ideas/sentence construction. Could be way off however.

This is not just a desire. It is a core need which won't simply be dissolved over time. Much like the need to have kids (which I have already accomplished). Hence I can shut up over the topic, but I can't stop thinking about it.

That may be the case for YOU - as it is for many here who identify as polyamorous - yet if this way of relating is NOT something your WIFE is willing to consider, EVER, then divorce or permanent separation may be your only option.


That's actually what's going on here. The topic isn't well-come at the moment to be talked directly, so I'm silent. I do not "persist in trying to convince/pressure/coerce her into changing her mind", as lunabunny said.

You are quoting me somewhat out of context, LoveQuest. To clarify: I didn't necessarily mean you have been overly persistent or have pressured your wife beyond endurance, yet.

I was speaking about a future hypothetical situation in which you may have attempted to seriously discuss the possibilities of polyamory with your wife a few more times (including providing her with some reading materials, and just letting her sit with the idea a while) - and IF, after all that, you'd STILL received a definitive "no" from her, then in my opinion it would be useless - even detrimental to your wife's well-being and your relationship - to persist in pushing to get this "need" met (at least, by her, within your current relationship).

Some have described possible reasons here, but the main reason is what I consider the most obvious one. It is the fear of loosing your loved one to someone else. Believing that your partner may choose to be with someone else over you, were this person eventually "replaces" your position, is actually a monogamous way of thinking, which requires a paradigm shift. m.

Well, yes. The reason you describe above (fear/insecurity which manifests as jealousy) is more or less implicit within the context of this issue and pertains not only to your wife but to most "mono" people of long-standing whose partners want to open up the relationship - and has already been addressed much earlier in this very lengthy thread.

Myself and other posters were simply exploring possible additional reasons for your wife's reluctance.
 
Last edited:
Some have described possible reasons here, but the main reason is what I consider the most obvious one. It is the fear of loosing your loved one to someone else.
I see. That's a very common one (so common that indeed it has been referred to implicitly in a lot of comments).

I don't dare to say much about how to deal with it though, as I tend to have more envy than fear of being replaced. Someone else please.

The only thing I know is really big help (for me) is that my partner is very consistent with his expressions of love. Him calling every day, making effort to see me, and expressing his desire frequently, gives me the certainty that he wants to be with me.

You've called it fear of replacement, but note that it's usually called (or at least closely related to) "fear of abandonment". As you know, avoiding abandonment (at all costs) is one of the diagnostic criteria for your wife's disorder - and the very reason why nobody would expect polyamory to be a good match for BPD people.

No wonder it's a major obstacle for you. It often is even for non-disordered people. And, as noted earlier, the vulnerability involved in childcare also contributes significantly to this fear.

It seems that her journey into polyamory would be indeed largely identical with her efforts to manage her illness and heal. (Provided she doesn't have other good reasons to stay monogamous and is willing to dare the journey.) None of us can say if she's capable of it or not, but it's certainly going to be really tough.

Well, at least you've named your greatest enemy.
Now you can address it overtly in your conversations with her.
She is very quick to learn new fears, on a deep level, but has a hard time unlearning them.
This is also very... human.
 
Last edited:
"Invite"

Instead of "how to invite your wife into polyamory" it should say "how to manipulate your wife into thinking it was her idea".
 
Connecting the dots...

Ravenscroft and Tinwen, please feel free to discuss further about the mono-to-poly transition consent. It is very well within what I wish to learn from here. I've read a couple of stories here which are quite interesting.

I think the result collected from a "new contract" are more important than the reasons for signing up to it. I mean that an enthusiastic yes can be ruined if things go wrong in any way, while a mere consent can show itself as a valuable decision if latter everyone gets happier. At the same time, it is true though that an enthusiastic yes has greater chances of being successful. Yet, I believe this is not the best predictor of success.

In my understanding, like any kind of decision a couple takes, what makes it successful is the fact that both monogamous partners are thinking as a unit when pondering about the change, not as individuals. In other words, they are targeting on mutual happiness, not just on their own benefits. For some who have a more individualistic personality, their own wishes and fears are mostly determinant for their motivation. However, one with a more altruistic personality may focus even more on their partner's well being (wishes and fears), then on their own. But you don't need two perfectly balanced individuals. A more individualistic person may couple well with a more altruistic one.

On the end, success is not so much determined by their character purity or their selfishness/altruism. It is more about the emotional connection each one of them has with that particular partner. You have a deep connection when you feel upon yourself your partner's greatest pains and joys. To give you an extreme example, take the movie series about Pablo Escobar. The connection between him and his wife was so deep that, regardless of Pablo's unscrupulous crimes, whatever they did was always targeting them as a unit.

This is not something that we can detect from simple sentences, ideas and thoughts of each partner, but their actions are more significant. When there is a deep connection, it will always "have the last word" and determines the outcome, making them act or not on a behavior and move or not towards a direction.

When that's the case, after a new contract is agreed and everyone is being honest, it will tend to work. Even those who are just consenting also get happier, both because they will enjoy watching your partner's happiness and because that new energy will be contagious and make their relationship more passionate.

I lack on proper poly-amorous experience, so feel free to provide a different point of view.
 
LoveQuest, the couple dynamic you describe above is - at best - a feeling of mutual empathy by both partners towards each other's wants, needs, pain, ambitions, growth, etc., and - at worst - a potentially destructive form of co-dependency.

I concur with Tinwen, regarding fear of abandonment being a defining trait of BPD'ed people. This fear can include being replaced, rejected, excluded, superceded in importance (such as when NRE kicks in with a newer partner), or otherwise made to feel less special or integral to the other partner's life, even if the BPD partner is not "left" outright.)
 
LoveQuest, the couple dynamic you describe above is - at best - a feeling of mutual empathy by both partners towards each other's wants, needs, pain, ambitions, growth, etc., and - at worst - a potentially destructive form of co-dependency.

Echoing this.

Also:

All of this intellectual claptrap doesn't matter one whit, LoveQuest. Your wife is not interested in polyamory. Period.
 
Really, neither do I. And that is a major sticking-point.

I am a self-aware person, sometimes kinda scary. :eek: I've been actively watching my own underlying motivations & reactions since the early 1970s & still regularly call myself to question. And to be truthful, I remain ALWAYS in doubt.

But, another topic, another day...

I think it's a wonderful question but also given what neuroscience tells us about free-will, I also think that the answer may not be a comforting one.

But like you said, for another topic, another day...
 
The cobweb...

LoveQuest, the couple dynamic you describe above is - at best - a feeling of mutual empathy by both partners towards each other's wants, needs, pain, ambitions, growth, etc., and - at worst - a potentially destructive form of co-dependency.

lunabunny, correct me if I'm wrong, but I noticed that for everything I said in this thread you disagreed and produced detailed counter arguments. Would you disagree with this ? :) Nothing personal for me, but if you could look at what I wrote from a neutral perspective, without thinking about the negative perception you had on anything I wrote earlier, then you'd notice I'm not not even talking about myself or my wife ( adding FallenAngelina here ).

Instead, what I described is just the essence of human beings. We are highly social species which would not have been able to reign on earth if it wasn't for our mutual dependency, sharing of resources, collaborative work, mutual care and mutual love. Thus there is nothing wrong with two people having a very deep connection. Except if they aren't able to reach any level of deepness in their "other connections", because then they would OVERLOAD and expect too much of each other, and fall into boredom. And there is where I see polyamory as the natural/original idea.

And, as supported by the book Sex at Dawn, monogamy is more of an adaptation brought mainly by agriculture, which started 10 thousand years ago - and extremely long period in terms of cultural development but extremely short period in evolutionary terms. In other words, our genes are yet the same as in old ages where polyamory was the standard.

So is mutual empathy the most that can or should exist between two partners? My answer is a round no. We should be able to love our partners about as deep as we love our children.

The thought that we are or should be independent is an illusion. No one is able to have a joyful life without maintaining any closer connection. Even our economy depends on the economical system around us. However, what we can, and should do, is to cultivate a range of connections, which will bring us security and flexibility. This is what makes the cobweb so efficient. Not its thickness but it's range of connections plus the fact that each individual connection is reliable.
 
Back
Top