In opening a relationship are you intentionally dialing back the relationship?

[dingedheart]

Sitting around the break room Monday, one of the lads was being harassed, teased, given shit on his recent GF situation. They have been dating going on 3 yrs and within the last 6-8 months moved in together. Recently she requested they dial back their relationship to “casual." The subtext was they’d be open to date other people.

The talk, jokes, harassment amongst his peers (young guys in their 20s, one being 33) was: "Dude, you fucked up. She wants a ring. OMG what did you do? She's friend-zoned your dumbass. She must be fucking another dude," to, "You need to pack your shit and get out now. Do you need help?" It was very entertaining to watch and listen to the opinions and advice these clowns gave.

Could dialing back and opening up be exactly the same as declaring non-monogamy status/identity, and simultaneously detangling, or detangling to make space for opening up? I don’t see much of a difference. The process, both mentally and physically, is similar or the same. Maybe the context changes slightly. In this case, intention is the critical factor. Is someone seeking a more permanent commitment, i.e., marriage proposal/big ring? (I don’t pay him enough for a big ring.) Or does she fear such a proposal and commitment and wants to head all of that off, and/or he’s NOT the one?

 

[kdt26417]

I think it depends on the particular situation, in this case she wants less of the monogamous situation, and more of the nonmonogamous situation. If she wants him to propose/give her a ring, she should say something to that effect. I'm not much of a fan of reading people's minds. But I know that's the expected norm.

 

[LoveBunny]

It's generally accepted that, in mono r'ships, when one partner says "I think we should see other people," it means they're just not that into you. I've never heard of anyone using that as a way to try to get someone to step up and put a ring on it.

 

[silver-genie]

Opening a relationship has no inherent effect on how casual or serious the relationship is. It's a common misconception among monogamous people that monogamous means serious, and ENM/poly means casual. In reality, ENM/poly relationships can and are every bit as serious as monogamous ones. However, when monogamous people date, the level of exclusivity correlates to how serious the relationship is. It sounds like your friend's girlfriend wants to de-escalate her relationship into a casual connection, not enter into an ENM relationship.

 

[dingedheart]

I think it depends on the particular situation, in this case she wants less of the monogamous situation, and more of the nonmonogamous situation. If she wants him to propose/give her a ring, she should say something to that effect. I'm not much of a fan of reading people's minds. But I know that's the expected norm.

Yes given the nature of that particularly break room “ forum “ it’s hard to really know what was actually said between him and her if there was a triggering event, etc, etc my point maybe mind reading wasn’t exactly needed. HE did say a few time he was completely caught off guard he had no idea where this was coming from. I know some of them planned to go out for beers after work to help him drown his sorrows.

UPDATE: As a result of that nights drinking he decided to bunk at one the crew members place and apparently a couple other nights following. AND apparently he’s been less than generous with responding to text or calls from her. I know this because she called the office looking for him leaving messages 2 days in a row to call her. If it weren’t so blasted cold I’d expect to see her show up here after work.

 

[dingedheart]

It's generally accepted that, in mono r'ships, when one partner says "I think we should see other people," it means they're just not that into you.

BINGO !! My initial thought. Pack your shit and get out if you thought you wanted mono wife house and kids.

I've never heard of anyone using that as a way to try to get someone to step up and put a ring on it.

Yeah I don’t think I’ve heard that specifically either ….i have heard women giving time sensitive nudge. I should know more of how this demographic thinks and act having 2 kids inside this exact bracket but sadly it doesn’t…..over than to say they’d rather text than talk.

 

[dingedheart]

Opening a relationship has no inherent effect on how casual or serious the relationship is.

That’s pretty declarative. Are you thinking in terms of basis. I would think each side of the relationship would get to determine in how that all plays out like you suggest in the “ how “ .

It's a common misconception among monogamous people that monogamous means serious, and ENM/poly means casual.

So how would that relate to this situation. I don’t know / don’t think the young woman in question specifically was requesting ENM when she floated her idea.

In reality, ENM/poly relationships can and are every bit as serious as monogamous ones.

I don’t think the overall structure would define seriousness or casualness the people, circumstance and placement inside the structure will dictate how the relationship ends up feeling on that spectrum of casual to deadly serious soulmates or what have you.

However, when monogamous people date, the level of exclusivity correlates to how serious the relationship is.

I think that’s a bit broad. I think that one of many factors that correlates to seriousness.

It sounds like your friend's girlfriend wants to de-escalate her relationship into a casual connection, not enter into an ENM relationship.

He’s an employee not what I’d call a friend …not that matters just he’s not going to pour his heart out to me…if I had been in the room I’d probably only here about it if things broke really bad.

I’m not sure I understand the fine line distinction you’re trying to make with casual connection / dating and entering into ENM. Other than consciously articulating that specific structure and the ethics expected to play in that space. Operationally / practically / daily they might look and feel pretty much the same. How do you see them from inside the trench ???

 

[silver-genie]

That’s pretty declarative. Are you thinking in terms of basis. I would think each side of the relationship would get to deter in how that all plays out like you suggest in the “ how “ .

The key word being "inherent." Opening up a relationship does not necessarily (or usually) mean making the relationship more casual.

The point I'm trying to make is that a casual connection is different from being in an ENM relationship. ENM relationships are not inherently less casual than monogamous ones.

I run into that misconception a lot on dating apps. People match with me, and then question how I can be poly and looking for a serious relationship. Because they think "poly" means casually dating around until you find someone you're serious about and will then be monogamous with.

 

[dingedheart]

The key word being "inherent." Opening up a relationship does not necessarily (or usually) mean making the relationship more casual.

I'd argue once someone has the idea, and/or suggests opening the relationship, inherent/intrinsic cease to be relevant, especially if relationship anarchy is in the air because of the multi-levels of change on top of the primary motivations for that structural change. Have you been in a relationship in which you were asked to consider such a change, doesn’t matter what side of the fence you were sitting on?

I mentioned this in another thread, but a podcast I saw recently where the wife in mono 17 yr marriage decides the missing piece to her authentic self is “being and living poly.“ She also declares to believe in RA and doesn’t believe in hierarchy. Lovers or love interests are considered equal. Husband is now nesting partner, NOT primary partner.

Everyone involved is allowed to put their own semantics spin on how that all looks and feels, and how they individually want to respond to all the “inherent“ changes.

The point I'm trying to make is that a casual connection is different from being in an ENM relationship. ENM relationships are not inherently less casual than monogamous ones.

Speaking from personal experience, I had 2 women I was see concurrently. They both started out casual. One grew significantly deeper and the other stayed more cause all under the banner of ENM. If I had to judge, the casual one was less casual than any mono relationship I had as an adult.

I run into that misconception a lot on dating apps. People match with me, and then question how I can be poly and looking for a serious relationship.

Is that a misconception, or more of a fear phrased in another way by hearing dating stories gone bad? Also the word “serious“ clearly has different meaning for each individual. As a young guy fresh out of college, just breaking into a new career, there were levels of seriousness. When to introduce to friends… sleepovers at my place… when to introduce to sibling or parents, etc., etc. Time wasn’t an automatic marker.

Because they think "poly" means casually dating around until you find someone you're serious about and will then be monogamous with.

Unfortunately that happens. I’ve seen it happen loads of times here by sworn poly professionals/zealots of 10 plus yrs, and I’ve seen it with people with poly blogs and podcasts. And the other unfortunate part is that they don’t normally stick around to explain their change of heart or change of practice.

 

[silver-genie]

I have been in two monogamous relationships that opened up to polyamory, and in both cases we were not making the relationship less serious. Also, I have been in one polyamorous relationship that was open from the start, and that relationship was not less serious than my mono ones.

In your example, it make sense that a casual connection was less serious than a relationship. But an ENM relationship is not inherently more casual than a mono relationship. ENM does not cause a relationship to be less serious. That is a separate choice.

The misconception I'm describing is that poly relationships are just casual sex partners, which is not true. Although you can, of course, be poly and have casual sex partners. Just like you can be mono and have them. When people talk about being "in a relationship," they're typically referring to something serious, i.e., having a significant other.

 

[Evie]

When people talk about being "in a relationship," they're typically referring to something serious, i.e., having a significant other.

I'd like to build on this idea.

Being "in a relationship" to me, and often broadly, can mean having certain agreements or commitments, spoken or unspoken. Mononormativity fosters unspoken agreements/commitments based upon societal expectations, usually in an increase that is considered a natural progression. The relationship escalator, as that is now called, was definitely a part of my upbringing - it was simply what was expected. We also bucked that trend as we slept (fucked) around for a while first. But it was still expected that once you've finished sowing your wild oats, you settle down, house, baby, marriage, the order didn't matter like it did in my grandparents' day. But there are a plethora of other commitments and agreements that happen before, throughout, and after these three milestones that are most commonly discussed.

I'm going to get morbid, because most people don't think beyond the three milestones mentioned above, but then there's the end of life stuff. Who organises the funeral? Who gets the ashes, or has the neighbouring burial plot? Who gets to speak at the funeral? If it's been parallel poly, is someone not even allowed to have a memorial service because they have been the barely tolerated person?

Very few couples who are opening up even think about this, be it after a blessedly long life, or if someone gets "hit by a bus" in the near future.

If you are the partner with articulated (or possibly assumed) primacy in this scenario, are you even prepared to have any other partners as the top 5 calls in case of emergency? Share visiting hours? Would you welcome other partners to the funeral? Let them speak? Not give them a hassle over their own memorial service if the above two options are possible? If you aren't, then you seriously need to reconsider if you are ready for polyamory.

Being "in a relationship" could mean being in a lifetime relationship. Including end of life. This is where parallel poly falls to pieces and why I, personally, will never consider full parallel poly as a part of my relationship design.

To sum, opening a relationship with ENM in mind doesn't (have to/necessarily) mean dialling it back, but it does mean sharing milestones, including the end of life ones.

Most "opening up" people get fixated on sex or feelings, but there are so, so many more milestones that matter.

 

[Tinwen]

Being "in a relationship" could mean being in a lifetime relationship. Including end of life. This is where parallel poly falls to pieces and why I, personally, will never consider full parallel poly as a part of my relationship design.

I'm not sure this is as much a matter of being "parallel" as being closeted and/or hierarchical The closet will surely make a funeral uncomfortable.
Anyway, the setup you are thinking about is a bit extreme. Parallel doesn't have to be closeted, hierarchical and hostile, it may well include the more garden-party variations, so let's not give it an unnecessarily bad name.
I fully agree the "poly" part should include enough consent, decency and goodwill to at least let each other know about emergencies and be able to talk about the practicalities in a civil manner.

 

[dingedheart]

I have been in two monogamous relationships that opened up to polyamory, and in both cases we were not making the relationship less serious.

The “we,” imo, has made the difference. When being a part of the break-room conversation, and then having several recent conversations , recent podcast, and recent threads in my head, i.e., poly under duress, then chatting with a poly-bombed guy reconciling his sporadic, nonexistent sex life following transition, the confluence of factors inspired this thread.

I can definitely see where you’re coming from on your point. I also think intentionality and motivation might play a key role in this-- what’s directly expressed and how that is expressed.

AND THEN, I think the execution is probably the most critical. This poly-bombed guy (Chris) who tried super hard to be on board, supportive, a cheerleade, he read the books, listened to the podcast, is on the forum reading threads and blogs, etc., etc., in less than 8 months he’s gone from a gung-ho new chapter in their marriage to feeling like he’s a guy she shares a history and a dwelling with. This is pretty much a quote. He’s gone from feeling like he was the luckiest guy in the world being her husband and partner, to she’s someone he shares, has fond memories of.

I asked him if this was a relationship that was just starting out, how would you categorize it. He said, "Friends with benefits with some additional entanglements.“ I don’t know where that fits on the scale of casual to serious. They’ve been married for 13 yr, together 15, 2 kids.

Also, I have been in one polyamorous relationship that was open from the start, and that relationship was not less serious than my mono ones.

I think that’s probably the best way to build a poly structure. Ground up.

In your example, it make sense that a casual connection was less serious than a relationship.

Are you talking about my personal example? If so, both were VERY much relationships. They just had different parameters and expectations.

But an ENM relationship is not inherently more casual than a mono relationship. ENM does not cause a relationship to be less serious. That is a separate choice.

My point is: inherent means nothing. It’s all choice and/or consequence of choice.

The misconception I'm describing is that poly relationships are just casual sex partners, which is not true. Although you can, of course, be poly and have casual sex partners.

Right, except that’s totally possible, and it does happen, maybe more often than people like to admit.

Just like you can be mono and have them. When people talk about being "in a relationship," they're typically referring to something serious, i.e., having a significant other.

I see that term used more loosely as seeing someone or dating. In today's climate, I’m not sure relationship means much other than a conversation starting point. I have more than a strictly business relationship with the lady that walks and takes care of my dog (big old golden retriever). I think I pay her well, do her favors, etc., and she leaves cookies and baked goods for me and my big furry buddy.

 

[dingedheart]

I'd like to build on this idea.

Being "in a relationship" to me, and often broadly, can mean having certain agreements or commitments, spoken or unspoken. Mononormativity fosters unspoken agreements/commitments based upon societal expectations, usually in an increase that is considered a natural progression. The relationship escalator, as that is now called, was definitely a part of my upbringing - it was simply what was expected. We also bucked that trend as we slept (fucked) around for a while first. But it was still expected that once you've finished sowing your wild oats, you settle down, house, baby, marriage, the order didn't matter like it did in my grandparents' day. But there are a plethora of other commitments and agreements that happen before, throughout, and after these three milestones that are most commonly discussed.

I’d also suggest meeting. Dating and fucking around is to gain experience to help find the right match or best fit to you.

I'm going to get morbid, because most people don't think beyond the three milestones mentioned above, but then there's the end of life stuff. Who organises the funeral? Who gets the ashes, or has the neighbouring burial plot? Who gets to speak at the funeral? If it's been parallel poly, is someone not even allowed to have a memorial service because they have been the barely tolerated person?

Very few couples who are opening up even think about this, be it after a blessedly long life, or if someone gets "hit by a bus" in the near future.

Talk about a flood of raw emotions.

If you are the partner with articulated (or possibly assumed) primacy in this scenario, are you even prepared to have any other partners as the top 5 calls in case of emergency? Share visiting hours? Would you welcome other partners to the funeral? Let them speak? Not give them a hassle over their own memorial service if the above two options are possible? If you aren't, then you seriously need to reconsider if you are ready for polyamory.

Interesting. I’ve never seen this or considered this.

Being "in a relationship" could mean being in a lifetime relationship. Including end of life. This is where parallel poly falls to pieces and why I, personally, will never consider full parallel poly as a part of my relationship design.

To sum, opening a relationship with ENM in mind doesn't (have to/necessarily) mean dialling it back, but it does mean sharing milestones, including the end of life ones.

Most "opening up" people get fixated on sex or feelings, but there are so, so many more milestones that matter.

I’d add the word meaningful milestones. A while back, someone sent me a reddit post about a wedding situation. Apparently after the kids left the home, Mom declared she was poly and opened the marriage. Some time later the grown kids were either informed or learned of their mother’s other relationship(s). Apparently it caused some angst inside the family, but life goes on. Daughter gets engaged and starts planning her wedding and she invites Mom and Dad. Mom calls and requests... I mean, demands plus one for her bf. Daughter rescinds invite. Daughter wanted this to be about her day, not a going-out party for her mom and dad. Parents said they were going to show up anyway… No idea what actually happened. But yeah... milestones.

 

[Tinwen]

I’d add the word meaningful milestones. A while back, someone sent me a reddit post about a wedding situation. Apparently after the kids left the home, Mom declared she was poly and opened the marriage. Sometime later, the grown kids were either informed or learned of their mother’s other relationship(s). Apparently it caused some angst inside the family, but life goes on. Daughter gets engaged, starts planning her wedding. She invites Mom and Dad. Mom calls and requests… I mean, demands plus one for her bf. Daughter rescinds invite. Daughter wanted this to be about her day, not a going-out party for her mom and dad. Parents said they were going to show up anyway…. No idea what actually happened. But yeah... milestones.

So what's your takeaway from this anecdote?

But yeah, weddings and politeness. My brother invited Idealist to his. Suddenly, my parents started to talk to him, pretending the years-long conflict never happened.

 

[dingedheart]

So what's your takeaway from this anecdote?

As far as I recall, the mom and dad were guests. But the person who sent that piece corrected my recollection, in that it ended up being a throuple. Mom and Dad either weren’t asked or weren’t in a position to pony up any money for this event, and the bride and groom didn’t want their wedding day turned into “coming out parties“ (sorry about the typos in the other post) for her mom as poly and dad as bisexual. I think the parents have a right to express the sexuality and the relationship dynamic to whoever they want, on their dime… build a float and grab a bullhorn and have a big party after the pride parade at their house or a rented venue of their choice.

But yeah, weddings and politeness. My brother invited Idealist to his. Suddenly, my parents started to talk to him, pretending the years-long conflict never happened.

How long was your dynamic known throughout the family/circle of friends/colleagues? To me, that could make a huge difference.

I think Mom and Dad were heavily playing the Mom and Dad card, while at the same time, trying to be loud and proud and/or over-compensating for their bf. Like going to the mattress on this … right or wrong demonstrates the level of love or something … or you’re a narcissist and typically get your way, with enough fuss and feathers.

To me, it sounds like your brother likes Idealist and wanted him to be a part of the festivities, or he knew it was important to you and it might/would help the overall family.

How would you have felt, what would you have done, if Idealist was not invited? Would you have taken it as a sign of disrespect? Did your meta attend, as well?