If you want to love me you have to love my spouse?

Marcus

Well-known member

london

Banned
ut if the person that your partner wishes to spend time with really rubs you the wrong way, then it really isn't going to work.

It will work if you accept that the relationships your partner has have absolutely nothijg to do with you. You don't have to like your metamours because you are under absolutely no obligation to even spend a minute of time alone with them. Your wife is married to you, she doesn't own you, so if I want to fuck/date/love you, I should only need to impress you, not her. She isn't who I want to bump genitals with, she isn't who I want to go to dinner with, you are. As long as your relationship with her isn't making you unhappy, I really don't give a shit about her. I mean, I hope she has a good life, but yeah, she isn't in my thoughts at all.
 

YouAreHere

Well-known member
I get wanting to meet my metamours, but the requirement is something completely different. Saying "I would like to meet the people in your life who are important to you" is just saying that I want to share in this type of intimate detail. It isn't an ultimatum or a demand, just a statement that if interest is mutual and time is available, I wouldn't mind meeting these people you've told me about.

This^^^

I enjoy being involved in my partner's life and learning about him and the things he enjoys, and this includes meeting the people in his life. However, I don't *need* to socialize or be BFFs with my metamours (which caused my friendship with M1 to be strained for a while when she did see us as potential sister/BFF type friends, whereas I didn't really care either way and didn't like being pushed in that direction).

If I don't like the person, I don't consider it his problem. I may say "no thanks" at getting together again, and if I think they have cowgirl/cowboy tendencies, I may tell P what I see (if it's egregious) or just work on making sure our own relationship is getting what it needs.

P and M1 technically started with "veto power" being on the books, and while I suppose I have it as well via the transitive property or something, I would prefer to just let his relationships be, unless there's some serious danger or cray-cray going on.

Now, that said, despite wanting to meet the folks in his life, it's not an interview, and I'd be happy (and probably happiest, in fact) to meet them in a social setting that doesn't require one-on-one interaction and conversation like dinner or coffee - there seems to be a lot of pressure with that type of interaction that I don't need to push on anyone (or myself, for that matter).
 

Inyourendo

New member
Did you really think that if the wife had decided that she didn't like you, he would be allowed to date you?

I hadn't considered that at the time. I was under the impression that she would have nothing to.do with our relationship other than that they wanted to make sure everyone was 100% upfront and knew about each other.

I.suppose if she decided for some arbitrary reason she didn't like me that might factor into him not wanting to continue seeing me.
 

Vixtoria

New member
Honestly, I don't get making it a rule that you have to meet the other person! Also, I respect my spouse, so I tell him when I'm talking to someone, I let him know I'm considering a meet, or a talk on the phone. However, that's showing respect. It is NOT disrespectful to decide that I date who I date. I found it slightly insulting to say that by NOT letting my spouse interview potential partners I was not respecting him. Please!

Now he has met boyfriend, but honestly that was kind of an accident! I was stranded, I needed to be picked up, so they met! They were both like, oh nice to meet you, and that was it.

While they have things in common and are able to get along, there is no requirement that they do. Yeah, I have a family and so it's nice that they all get along but guess what? I'm not interviewing potential partners and making them get interviewed by my hubby and my kids and my other partners before I give them a chance. I guess it's more organic. If I like you, I start sharing more of my life. Ta da!
 

CattivaGattina

New member
For myself and Woodsmith the only time we'd really want to meet is if it's going to go past a dating stage to an actual relationship. Myself just so whoever he is with does know that I'm cool with it (something I've seen women in general have a harder time believing). Him because of the fact I want a D/s or M/s aspect in the relationship and he would like to meet anyone just to get a feel before that would start.
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
I think other conversations/discussions we have had recently basically boil down to this issue: whilst people aren't explicitly saying that unless you "love" me, you cannot "love" my spouse, it does seem as if they are saying unless you "love" me, a relationship with my spouse will be near impossible because dating my spouse effectively means dating my family and if you don't want to be that involved with us (opposed to you desiring involvement with the spouse only), then you won't be able to date. Ie, to have a chance at a healthy, happy relationship with someone's husband, I have to feel affection for his wife, kids, in laws too and want to spend time with them.

Maybe someone-but most of us are saying "if you don't get along with my family-you won't be able to date ME because I am not going to give up MY time and enjoyment of MY family for a piece of ass."

Which is wholly different than saying "If you don't get along with me you can't date my spouse because I won't let my spouse have time away from me/family for a piece of ass."

One is personal preference-the other is controlling someone else.

It seems logical to me that people who are like-minded in terms of their enjoyment of family and unwillingness to date "outside of their social group" would end up together.
Thus they aren't controlling each other-they just so happen to all be of the "I don't want a piece of ass enough to be willing to give up my time with my family-so if you want my ass-you will have to be able to come to me."
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
I once met a guy and part of his dating process was all parties meet first. So it was a coffee date with his wife, him, N and me. I guess mainly to make sure all parties were ok. I was ok with this. But if me dating someone was contingent on their partner liking me or they had veto power, I wouldnt bother with them.

THIS!!!

It's like people think this is an "all or nothing" topic-but it's really not.

There is a HUGE difference between saying we have to get along before you can fuck-and saying "hey we agree to always have everyone meet everyone else just so we know that no one is getting the misguided impression that we aren't really in a committed relationship."
The fact is that there are A LOT MORE PEOPLE out there having affairs and cheating, then there are people who are openly and willingly non-monogamous.
None of us wants to date a person who is ok with dating a cheater.
Period.

So yeah-anyway.
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
I get wanting to meet my metamours, but the requirement is something completely different. Saying "I would like to meet the people in your life who are important to you" is just saying that I want to share in this type of intimate detail. It isn't an ultimatum or a demand, just a statement that if interest is mutual and time is available, I wouldn't mind meeting these people you've told me about.

On the other side of this spectrum, if meeting my partners is a requirement, that is not even remotely the same. This is a statement that "we group date, so everyone has to be yippy skippy happy with everyone else or you are not welcome". I don't group date because I don't want other people having some kind of say in how I carry on with my relationships, and I don't want any say in how other people carry on with their relationship...

I think part of the conflict Marcus-
is this

for example;

Maca and GG don't choose to participate in these discussions. There are a few people on the board who remember when they did-and they know that when I speak for either of them-I'm damn careful to say only what I KNOW they would say.

But-when I say that we all agree that none of us is willing to date someone who isn't willing to be a participant in SOME capacity (friendly-not necessarily friends) with the rest of the family;

people here get up in arms over how I am controlling them.

Um-no. I'm not. In point of fact-I'm MUCH more open to other partners then either of the guys. But-they aren't controlling me either.
In this topic-we all see it the same way. Always did-even when we weren't dating.
We prioritize the kids and "family time" over ANY dating-even our dating of each other.

Likewise-our preference for meeting each others potentials has nothing to do with veto. It has to do with ensuring that the other person see's that we are in fact real people AND opening the door to them to be able to speak to ANY OF US directly.
It's had some freaking amazingly wonderful consequences. When I met E, I was able to let her know (first time they met in person we all met together) that I was flying out the following morning-to be out of state for an undetermined number of weeks and potentially months. But that I would be happy to talk to her anytime if she wanted to contact me via phone/text/email.
She took me up on that and it made everything run so smoothly. Any time she had concerns-she could talk to me, not just Maca. Any time I had concerns, I could talk to her directly-not just Maca.
We chose to be mindful of each others birthdays, anniversaries, mothers day, etc. But-we were more capable of this-because we KNEW THEM. The reality is-Maca doesn't pay attention to that stuff. If he tells me the day before-I can't do much about the calendar. But in knowing them via her-I was able to keep those special days clear. No kids dr appointments scheduled on days that would be meaningful for her.

Since I schedule that stuff-it was very helpful to have that info from her. I could have asked Maca til I was blue-and what would have happened is that they would end up stuck at some appointment or another during special days for her. Shitty. Likewise-knowing her work schedule, I was able to tailor my school schedule (which changes semester to semester) so that I wasn't creating a conflict for Maca needing to babysit the ONLY day she was off work each week.

Anyway-I totally agree "controlling" someone else's relationship is bullshit. But there is a reality factor that with kids and pets-there has to be someone responsible. We have to work together to make it possible for any one to get free time away-and honestly-it isn't easy.
Dating someone who wants no contact with any of us-would mean realistically that we wouldn't see them more than once or twice a month. Because we sincerely wouldn't be free more than that.
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
Myself just so whoever he is with does know that I'm cool with it (something I've seen women in general have a harder time believing).

This!
Women struggle with believing that I'm ok with it.
Meeting me in person and even meeting GG has allowed them to be more comfortable with dating Maca.

Now mind you, "dating" gets all convoluted as a word in here. Because some people don't consider it dating once you have a partnership and some do etc etc.

Personally-I told Maca, if they aren't going to be around the rest of us-I don't give a hot damn one way or the other about them. Do what ya want to do. He hasn't met any women who were ok with that. Shrug.

On the other hand, if they want to be around my kids, our home, our life, they WILL be around me. It is MY life and MY home and MY kids as well as his.
So if they want that-they have to be ok with being around me.
Likewise, they need to be ok with being around GG;
because it is HIS house, HIS life, HIS kids too.

And that works all of the way around.
But-its not a "rule" it's a reality.

My sister in law would prefer to never see me again. But her husband (my baby brother) is close to me and my family. He comes around. Sometimes she comes-when she does-guess what, she's around me.
On the other hand, I try to limit my going over to his place. Because it is HER home too. It is HER sanctuary and she can't stand me. She shouldn't have to deal with her sanctuary being uncomfortable because of me.

And here in lies what I think a lot of people miss in all of this.

That someone is having sex with another person, doesn't change the way I interact with them. I love my brother. My brother loves me. We have a DEEP and STRONG affectionate love for one another. But we aren't sexually involved. We expect our other loved ones to accept this, to respect it and to NOT try to impede our relationship. But-we also expect each other to treat our OTHER relationships with the same.
This doesn't change with people I AM sexually involved with. Same expectations and "rules" if you want to use that term. If they can't manage that-they aren't going to be dating me.
One aspect of that is, that our lives are VERY VERY VERY integrated. The whole family is.
So people who want to be involved with ANY ONE OF US-are at some point going to be dealing with each and every one of us.

For someone who prefers much less integration-none of us (me, Maca, GG, our siblings etc) would be a good date partner. Period.
 

Dragon13

New member
Bravo to Loving Radiance. I think she spelled it all out well. I obviously have a long way to go towards making myself properly understood. We are not controlling each others outside lovers, we are respecting each other. Letting them know we care and want to be sure they are safe and enjoy themselves.
 

ColorsWolf

New member
Bravo to Loving Radiance. I think she spelled it all out well. I obviously have a long way to go towards making myself properly understood. We are not controlling each others outside lovers, we are respecting each other. Letting them know we care and want to be sure they are safe and enjoy themselves.

LovingRadiance

To both of you: exactly and bravo, bravo!~
See this works for some and that's great!~ ^_^
 

nycindie

Active member
There seems to be a lot of need for control.
Yes, you do seem to need a lot of control by requiring that you and your spouse must meet and approve of anyone else the other wishes to date. I would never date a guy who had to seek permission and approval from his wife or gf. I only want to date people who are secure in their relationships and not couple-centric.

But if the person that your partner wishes to spend time with really rubs you the wrong way, then it really isn't going to work.
But why not, if your wife is dating a certain person, why would it matter if they got along with you or not? They're not dating you! The person might rub you the wrong way but be absolutely stimulating, thrilling, and perfect for your wife!

Live your lives like your partners opinion doesn't matter. But we will move forward with the love and respect we have for each other.
I prefer the kind of love and respect that translates into being trusted and free to be my own person! I can make my own grown-up decisions without asking permission to live my life from anyone! The love and respect I want from a partner means I am free to make my own choices, no one attempts to take away my agency, and our autonomy is highly regarded.

Women struggle with believing that I'm ok with it.
Meeting me in person and even meeting GG has allowed them to be more comfortable with dating Maca.

If I need proof that a guy isn't cheating and his wife or partner is okay with poly, an email or phone call is enough for me. I don't need a face-to-face.
 
Last edited:

LovingRadiance

Active member
Nyc-to me a phone call/text/email is meeting them. I don't need face to face either. I just need to know that they know it really is ok.

The face to face just happens to be a reality within a short time-because we're so frequently in the same space. Hell-even when we have plans separate, it frequently requires meeting to exchange kids in route.

I almost always have to exchange kids in town in order to go on a date-which means that whoever the date is with, see's GG or Maca as we are trading off the kids.

But-I prefer to see dates more than once or twice a month when I can get away for an hour free and clear with no one.
Shrug.
I invite them here with an open door policy-but if they accept-again-they will see the guys face to face (and the kids and quite possibly other people too) cause our house is ALWAYS full of people coming and going.
 

LovingRadiance

Active member
I agree it is unique in the world at large. But it isn't unique in Alaska. It is actually common.
I wonder (often) about how and why it is so different here.
Like locking doors.
We don't lock our front door and we don't take keys out of the car ignition. Plenty of people do, but most long time Alaskans, don't. And if someone is out in the woods (which are easily less than 10 miles from our doorstep) and has a crisis, breaking into a home for safety and warmth is completely legal....

Anyway-yes, it is unique compared to others. But I am pretty "normal" here & the reason I explain it, is the same reason I promote myself asking about and reading explanations of others, because I think we can all benefit from realizing that our way isn't the only way or even "the right way". They are all just "the right way for me" examples.
I often use you as an example of how I could easily see me living if I had not remained in Alaska (I was intending to go to West Point upon graduation originally). Your logic, reasoning, preferences make sense to me-give. A different set of curcumstances.

But here-it would be considered bizarrely odd for someone to segregate out their life (or attempt to) because it would be damn near impossible to accomplish. Much like being in the closet. There are only a couple restaurants in this town and 2 grocery stores. To be completely closeted would require MUCH more work and likely fail. But it would also be seen as peculiar to try because there are already a number of poly families who are very vocally out in the community. Even the public schools are versed in dealing with it.
People here expect that the community as a whole is in a very real sense all part of one extended family.
It isnt unusual at all. My oldest childs friend from school is the grandchild of a parishioner at the church a close friend of mine attends. We don't identify as "friends", but we know each others business. Two many cRiss cRoss paths.
Maca's dad is the stepfather of kids I went to school with that Maca never knew.
Gg's best friend growing up went to church with me and was also best friends with my brother (though GG and I hadnt met). His stepsister dating my daughters paternal uncle and got pregnant the same year I did.
The 24 yo trouble maker who was new to town, befriended a number of people who grew up with my daughter & found herself being read the riot act for talking crap about me because these kids all call me mom.
My son-in-law, who had never met his father before he married my daughter; well the father was best friends with my ex growing up, I know the whole extended family and help out with the other grandchild who is in states custody. I knew his dad before he did. As well as the whole circle of friends his dad hung out with.
I go to town with my grandson and people I dont know ask mee "who are you and why do you have **** son?" I tell them I am his grandmother and suddenly its "oh! Wow! I didnt recognize you! You look so amazing since your surgery! She was so worried about you! She tells me all of the time about...."

Shrug. Guess we are a friendlier lot. I don't know. But here, people join families. Whole families join. Dating or no dating.
 

opalescent

Active member
^^^^ Is why I live in a big city. :)

I would hate that level of interconnectedness. I'm sure it has lots of good things about it but the lack of privacy would get to me. To each his own!
 

london

Banned
This!
Women struggle with believing that I'm ok with it.
Meeting me in person and even meeting GG has allowed them to be more comfortable with dating Maca.

See, my thinking is that when I meet someone, starting out by doubting what they say is not the best foundation for what we could have in the future. Of course, I get talking to guys who claim they are in ethically non monogamous relationships and something just tells me that they are not. The thing is, as soon as I get that pang in my gut that says something is dodgy, I cease all interactions. It really doesn't matter if it's true or not, the problem is that I don't trust them. That basically trumps everything else.
 
Top