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

LovingRadiance

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!

ABSOLUTELY! :)
And THAT is why I love talking with you guys so much! It's so educational to be able to read about such differences.

It is very true-that our "biggest city" is smaller than most small towns in the US. LOL!
Our small communities have less than 30 people living in them and tend to be isolated (no road system). ;)
 

ColorsWolf

New member
ABSOLUTELY! :)
And THAT is why I love talking with you guys so much! It's so educational to be able to read about such differences.

It is very true-that our "biggest city" is smaller than most small towns in the US. LOL!
Our small communities have less than 30 people living in them and tend to be isolated (no road system). ;)

I'm actually the opposite, I don't find the idea of living in a city to be very appealing: one reason is because I really enjoy nature more than any thing Human made and the other I haven't quite put my finger on it.~

About the "interconnectedness" thing: the thought of every one keeping secrets from me or just not having that "interconnectivity" among people that I love seems so horrible and cold. I think that's one of the reasons I don't like things that are "purely physical", because people aren't willing to share themselves their whole soulful selves with you, the thought leaves me feeling cold.~

I just love the idea of being in something that feels like every one is conncected and friendly and cares about you and each other!~ ^_^

Update: about the privacy thing, I never really saw a need for it other than to hide some thing from some one who may want to take volatile action against you because they don't agree with what you do.~
 
Last edited:

JaneQSmythe

Active member
We don't have any rules about meeting metamours (or friends for that matter - MrS and Dude were friends for 3-4 years before I met Dude). We also don't have any rules about metamours getting involved with each other (either for or against). Whatever happens, happens.

Since we are currently expanding our socializing to include poly meet-ups etc. it is certainly possible that we are going to meet people who have their own "rules" in this department. None of us has any objection to meeting or talking to anyone that the others is involved with if that is what they would need to feel comfortable. After that, the level of socializing and friendship/more that developed between any of the individuals involved would be up to the individual people involved.

That being said, we share a lot of interests, it wouldn't be unusual for potential dates/metamours to also share those interests. We would likely meet our potential dates at places where more than one of us was present. If one of us was interested in someone and it got to the potential dating stage then it would seem natural to invite them to things that we are attending that they might enjoy.

For instance, last night Dude invited his new interest from OKC to a concert that we were all attending along with a friend of his - we all went to dinner, the concert, and then back to her place for chit-chat - her husband was asleep. We all had a great time. They agreed that there was enough interest there for them to aim for a one-on-one date in the near future.

This is actually a model that feels very comfortable to me - how we used to hang out and meet people when I was in high-school/college. People would invite friends, people had interests in common, sometimes people would hit it off and go on to date each other. (This is how I found MrS - and I wasn't even "looking"!)

As usual, that was more than I meant to write...

JaneQ
 
Last edited:

LovingRadiance

Active member
Jane-I've always been that way too. In school, after school-just always invite people to "come along" or "join in".
 
This is just my opinion, and how it works at our house. Either spouse may have a lover just for themselves, but that lover must be approved by the other spouse. Otherwise, I have to question the love and respect that the couple has for each other. We have said for years, that either of us can go out and find another lover, but before you get to spend time with that lover, it must be approved by the spouse. We have no doubts in our mind that our love for each other will continue no matter who is brought home. Our concern is that the person being brought into the relationship thinks they might be able to steal the person away. While we have no fear of it, we do not allow that kind of thinking. We will share our love with others, but do not allow anyone else to think they can steal the love away.

There is no way my spouse can tell me I can date so and so and vice versa. The only time we've agreed to meeting each other's partner is if it's going to involve our children. I have enough faith and trust in him that he'll make the right judgement for himself; otherwise that is nothing but CONTROL. No one can control me and I wouldn't be happy if any one tried.

As far as a cowgirl or cowboy, again, I have faith my spouse will recognize this and the same for me. This sounds like an insecurity. I realize this works for you but still no way in h#ll will my spouse control my other relationships; otherwise I might as well stay monogamous and be dictated to about who I can like or not like as my friends.

As far as letting a new partner know they can't steal you from your spouse or vice versa, can't that be discussed when you start seeing them. Why do they need to meet your spouse or vice versa? It just doesn't make any sense to me aside from it being a control thing. But that again is my opinion.
 

SchrodingersCat

Active member
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.

I didn't think I would, but when I met Auto, things really clicked. Her husband has a severe anxiety disorder and part of that entails him feeling a lot of insecurity about their relationship. So to cope with that, they've agreed to a veto in regards to starting relationships. Their veto does not extend to ending relationships already in progress. Also, Auto requires her husband to come up with sound reasons to veto someone, it can't just be the result of his control issues.

When they started dating, Auto hadn't heard of polyamory. She thought of herself as a cheater because she'd never been faithful to anyone in her life. So in the interest of disclosure and honesty, she told him up front that she was probably going to cheat on him. He didn't like that, but they soon worked out for themselves that it didn't need to be "cheating" if they both knew about it. So they agreed on some guidelines that have since evolved.

I wouldn't describe them as "couple-centric," but rather family-centric. They place a lot of importance on their children and their family. Part of that means prioritizing family things over outside-romantic things, and that in turn entails making sure they take care of their marriage.

Some people cling to ideas just because they can't be bothered to learn and grow. But the more I interact with people with mental illness, the more I realize that some circumstances that are less than ideal are also unavoidable. Having diagnosed anxiety disorder is not the same as "I don't want to deal with my insecurity." That was, admittedly, difficult for me to accept at first. Auto's husband knows better than anyone how he's "supposed" to react and think and behave. And if he could just flick the switch and make it so, believe me he would. But there's only so much you can accomplish even with medication and therapy, and so I can choose to just walk away and not deal with it, but then I would lose Auto. So I deal with it.
 

nycindie

Active member
SC, in your and Auto's case, it doesn't sound like what I was referring to in my post that you quoted. It sounds like thoughtful discussion took place, important issues handled with specific actions/remedies, and everyone clear about their choices.

My issue, personally, is always about when someone in a relationship makes rules for their partner's relationships in order to preserve and lord their couplehood over others. Some of the stories I read here about what people put up with, because they think that is what poly has to be, are true life horror tales IMO! Perhaps that kind of bullshit is why the OP started this thread with:
I don't buy into this polyamorous requirement that if you are legally married to someone that your spouse has to also be romantically involved with the other person you are in love with.


Beyond the issue of time management, I simply don't want someone not in a relationship with me making rules for my relationships, so I hope that anyone I get involved with has a strong relationship and a strong need of equanimity in their relationships, so that no one thinks they can create rules for me. I certainly would never allow myself to be coerced into some weird psycho-sexual arrangement with a guy's spouse just to be with him.
 

london

Banned
In the case of anxiety issues, I might make an exception but this still seems very vague:

Also, Auto requires her husband to come up with sound reasons to veto someone, it can't just be the result of his control issues.

Who decides what is a "sound reason" and what isn't? I mean, most of the reasons someone will come up with to veto a potential metamour will be as a result of control issues anyway because, assuming that everyone is of sound mind and generally avoids unhealthy relationships, anything else that was obviously bad about the potential partner would have been a red flag to the hinge anyway. So to me, it sounds like the vast majority of the time he presents an issue with someone, she will just say that it's his control issues and the attempted veto will be just that, attempted. Having veto powers and then having them rejected every time you attempt to use them would be confusing at best. Your partner being able to regularly point out genuine reasons why you shouldn't date the person you are seriously considering dating should highlight that your partner selection is somewhat off.
 

ColorsWolf

New member
I think because I love to be every moment I can with someone I love, I mean literally think "joined at the hip" kind of constant closeness, we would naturally gravitate towards us together dating other people because we wouldn't spend that much time doing our own things apart from each other, plus I naturally am a sharing person and I would like to get to know the person who is also making my lover happy to and maybe love them to.~ :)

I also have no boundaries, so getting a hug and a kiss or giving a hug and a kiss while on the toilet would NOT be out of the question for me.~ I'm also the kind of person to invite other people to use the toilet while I'm using the shower since it's only practical.~ In fact I wouldn't mind showering together with many people at once in one shower.~ I would do all of this with anyone regardless of whether I just met them or not, BUT ESPECIALLY with my lover(s).~ ^_^
 
Last edited:

Marcus

Well-known member
My issue, personally, is always about when someone in a relationship makes rules for their partner's relationships in order to preserve and lord their couplehood over others.

Why do they need to meet your spouse or vice versa? It just doesn't make any sense to me aside from it being a control thing.

This is the issue, it is either a request or it is a demand - it can't be both (no matter how it is worded).

If "no" is not an acceptable answer then it was not a question... it was a demand (again, no matter how it is worded).

I think because I love to be every moment I can with someone I love, I mean literally think "joined at the hip" kind of constant closeness... I also have no boundaries

Off hand, I can't think of a worse kind of torture than to be in this kind of relationship. At least the Borg get cool tech implants.
 

CattivaGattina

New member
If I'm needing alone time (particularly when I'm working on photos) you better leave me the fuck alone. Otherwise you're going to have a bitch on your hands.
 

ColorsWolf

New member
Hehe, that's the point though right?~ ^_^ No one's relationship ways are supposed to fit every one, every one is unique and they each have their own beautiful little ways of loving.~
 

ThatGirlInGray

New member
LR, your situation and outlook is unique. I don't know why you keep explaining it, actually. I wouldn't think it would apply to that many other people's situations.

Perhaps not many, but it does apply to others. I wasn't going to bother replying to this thread because LR was doing a terrific job of saying exactly what I would say, so I'm quite glad she kept explaining it. Family-centric is not an uncommon relationship model, whether you're talking poly or mono, and except for the Alaska and not locking doors bit, it all sounded quite familiar to me. I can't imagine having a serious relationship with anyone who did not fit in well with my family. TGIB has said something similar when I've expressed concerns over who he may choose to date in the future (his past track record in choosing partners who respect him and treat him well is not good, if you're wondering why I was concerned). We are a family, and though it is NOT required to date or have sex with either of my partners in order to have the option for both with me, being able to get along with everyone reasonably well and spend time with the group IS.

I would say your situation and outlook are unique, nycindie, rather than LR's.
 

nycindie

Active member
Family-centric is not an uncommon relationship model, whether you're talking poly or mono, and except for the Alaska and not locking doors bit, it all sounded quite familiar to me. I can't imagine having a serious relationship with anyone who did not fit in well with my family. TGIB has said something similar when I've expressed concerns over who he may choose to date in the future (his past track record in choosing partners who respect him and treat him well is not good, if you're wondering why I was concerned). We are a family, and though it is NOT required to date or have sex with either of my partners in order to have the option for both with me, being able to get along with everyone reasonably well and spend time with the group IS.

I would say your situation and outlook are unique, nycindie, rather than LR's.

Yes, I could be seen as being in the minority of poly, being solo, but I know there are lots of other solos with very similar views, wants, and practices to mine. I guess I wasn't clear, though, about why I think LR's situation is unique. It's not the focus on children and family - that I get. If I were a parent or step-parent, I'd be focused on family, too. I know lots of polyfolk have families and make their families a priority. I know many polyfolk don't introduce their children to lovers until the relationship seems solid and established. Those things all make quite a lot of sense, and I don't think that's unusual.

I do think LR's tight-knit community where people can come and go into her home IS unusual. That she lives with her husband and boyfriend, and each of them are on different schedules, all co-parenting their children, but don't like really hearing about her relationship with the other, while one is LR's dom and the other is LR's sub, is also unusual. I also think that her policy of establishing friendships first and making sure someone is part of her inner family circle before entertaining any sort of romantic involvement is very unusual. As I understand it, she doesn't "date" per se, someone she doesn't know and have a tight friendship with already. That is mainly what I see as not applying to most people. The way LR "dates" seems more European in style than American. I may be wrong, but I think most poly people in No. America, including partnered ones, will go out on dates with people they are just meeting in person for the first time, to see if there is a possibility for romance. Sure, it might be a while before they meet the family, that is not the element I think would not apply to most poly people.

I admit, though - LR's approach and outlook seems so extroverted to me, so maybe I see it as odd just because I am very much an introvert!

Sorry, LR, if it sounded like I was critical. I just didn't see how your situation, which I think is unusual, really applies to this thread where the OP was talking about couples who demand that a lover be romantically involved with both of them. I guess you were just talking about familial/social involvement. And it seemed you kept repeating yourself over and over abut your situation and approach in this and other threads - but maybe some people just weren't getting what you were saying. And also, sorry for writing about you in the third person, it's just that once I started, wasn't sure how to transition!
 
Last edited:

CattivaGattina

New member
I also think that her policy of establishing friendships first and making sure someone is part of her inner family circle before entertaining any sort of romantic involvement is very unusual. As I understand it, she doesn't "date" per se, someone she doesn't know and have a tight friendship with already. That is mainly what I see as not applying to most people. The way LR "dates" seems more European in style than American.
It's probably why even though her and my lives are different in many ways I do find where she comes from in this topic as much more up my alley. I date the same way. I want a friendship to be there before something romantic would happen (especially if there's any sort of D/s or M/s element). May not have to be part of the inner family circle but have to be willing to be friendly with anyone that I'm either in a relationship with or hold as very important to my life.
 

drinnt

New member
Barely crossing over

This is me: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56025

I had some thoughts before reading this thread...and am glad for the thread because now I have more thoughts...expanded thoughts.

In my budding situation we're just barely accepting the poly nature of our relationship. Well...the two girls do not always see eye to eye and have been naturally defensive toward each other from day one.

Coming from a swingers background we've all been seeing this as a barrier and potential downfall of our relationship but we all love our partners so much that giving this up is not an option right now.

Anyway...I see from this thread that it's NOT a requirement that the girls are experiencing equal desire for affection. There are no requirements, only that we desire there to be a working relationship so we can all enjoy what there is to enjoy.

So thank you for helping to open my eyes. I was quite stuck on "this isn't working because the girls aren't in love too."
 
Last edited:

LovingRadiance

Active member
The way LR "dates" seems more European in style than American.

I admit, though - LR's approach and outlook seems so extroverted to me, so maybe I see it as odd just because I am very much an introvert!

Sorry, LR, if it sounded like I was critical. I just didn't see how your situation, which I think is unusual, really applies to this thread where the OP was talking about couples who demand that a lover be romantically involved with both of them. I guess you were just talking about familial/social involvement. And it seemed you kept repeating yourself over and over abut your situation and approach in this and other threads - but maybe some people just weren't getting what you were saying. And also, sorry for writing about you in the third person, it's just that once I started, wasn't sure how to transition!

I love reading your impressions and thoughts especially when personally applicable to me. It's a gift to have someone whose opinion I greatly respect talk about me-ESPECIALLY when that someone see's things from SUCH a drastically different viewpoint than I do.
So please, don't apologize.

When i repeat with slight variations, it is because I think someone isn't quite grasping my point &/or I am reconsidering a detail.

That first piece about European intrigues me. I know little to nothing about European cultures. :) That would be interesting if I actually had something in common with people there-which I don't have in common with people here. :) Very neat indeed!
 

Natja

New member
That first piece about European intrigues me.

Me too..I can't believe I missed the European comment earlier but....what??

Europe is made up of dozens of Countries with widely different cultures. Not some homogeneous mass of sameness,,,there is no "European Style" of dating. Italians don't date the same as Swedes, the Poles date different from the Brits and I'm not too sure that many of us 'date' like LR.

In fact, in Western and Northern Europe in general, families are small and quite insular, having people coming into and out your home all the while is not only uncommon but not quite practical, I mean, have you even seen how small our homes are? Oh no, people go home and we prefer invites thank you very much, uninvited, unexpected arrivals are a Brits idea of hell. Southern Europe on the other hand do tend to have stronger connections to extended family and probably live closer to them and see them more often but this doesn't equate to having people in and out of their homes all the time. Americans definitely have the wrong idea of Europe. :confused:
 
Last edited:

london

Banned
Me too..I can't believe I missed the European comment earlier but....what??

Europe is made up of dozens of Countries with widely different cultures. Not some homogeneous mass of sameness,,,there is no "European Style" of dating. Italians don't date the same as Swedes, the Poles date different from the Brits and I'm not too sure that many of us 'date' like LR.

In fact, in Western and Northern Europe in general, families are small and quite insular, having people coming into and out your home all the while is not only uncommon but quite practical, I mean, have you even seen how small our homes are? Oh no, people go home and we prefer invites thank you very much, uninvited, unexpected arrivals are a Brits idea of hell. Southern Europe on the other hand do tend to have stronger connections to extended family and probably live closer to them and see them more often but this doesn't equate to having people in and out of their homes all the time. Americans definitely have the wrong idea of Europe. :confused:
I was going to say this but they'd just argue back. Especially in Britain, the idea of teaming up dating with your kids is reprehensible. Having guys around after bedtime is something you'll see in Shameless and amongst people to ascribe to that sort of lifestyle but otherwise, no. Other European countries have quite strong religious beliefs and so dating at all, especially after the failure of a marriage is sort of frowned upon to varying degrees depending on the country and culture of that particular person.
 
Top