Intimacy/commitment/passion

1

1234567

Member
I read a interesting theory defining types of love by whether they contain good amounts of one, two, or 3 of the following:
Intimacy, passion, commitment. There was no “wrong” or right, but it helped define the shapes of some loves I’ve had and been in.

Very interested in what people feel they are finding in their relationships, and what feels satisfying to them.

I wonder how poly suited I am, because ideally I would love all three in the same relationship, and many poly people I know either prefer one to be absent, or are happy or even prefer it when they get all 3 in a combination of relationships, but not all in the same relationship.


Myself, I have found many poly partners to be high in intimacy and high in passion at least through NRE, and low in commitment. But I started off dating as single, so never got a commitment strong relationship going before opening up.

I wonder if that is roughly universal- we hold that you can do multiple romantic relationships. Romance can be defined as passion and intimacy, but turns into consummate love when it has the third. Many structures accept or foster a lower commitment level to a newer partner- in fact, I think that is the definition of a secondary.

We opine no one needs to have it all- and it is in fact impossible to do so and so are open to, say, low intimacy or passion but high commitment nesting partners, knowing with can get passion with NRE. In fact, companionate love is defined as high commitment, high intimacy, low passion. And many accept that in older partners as par for the coursE. If passion is partly defined as wanting to be with someone, low passion makes it acceptable to lose some together time in search of passion elsewhere.

I wonder, also, if I want all 3 aspects in one relationship— am I really looking in the wrong place if I look for this in poly?

Or do some of you find this with multiple people?
 
My wife of 14 years and I have intimacy and commitment. My girlfriend and I of 2 years have passion and intimacy. To paraphrase Meatloaf, 2 out of 3 is pretty darn good.

From a poly perspective, my question would be whether you are looking to expand in directions that are not currently possible, or whether you are looking to replace, which is a different kettle of fish.
 
Last edited:
I had a reply and lost it— I have been looking to expand, for 3 years. And am wondering if it is harder tocexpand INTO commitment.

I have it— with my ex-husband, I have commitment and intimacy in the form of friendship/co-parenting.

With my current people, commitment is not absent- just lower than would be considered strong by outsiders, and perhaps myself. I’m the one who goes when resources are low. Both cases, one of us feels part of the family one way, but not the other. One set has kids, and I have been dating both people and am sort of an aunt to the kids, but it’s not gone the other way, and the other’s family (partner and partner’s parent) really is not open to me being a part. But my kids and ex have taken in them as part of mine. Meaning both have to choose rather than manage as one big family if there are conflicts- and I generally automatically take the back seat, though one o be fair, consciously tries not to. It just tends to happen sub-consciously. And then we realize thwre’s something really basic to feel like a committed relationship to me that I have been asking for, and in general is thought be part of a close relationship to have regularly, that has disappeared due to lack of energy or deliberate effort. Once we catch it, it tends to be worked on, because my partnerms like that, but it takes a while, because I tend to be like that too- understanding of extenuating circumstances, and not realizing it is adding up to feeling neglected for a while

With past partners, the complications of poly have tended to be hurdles from poly with the rare single or solo people that tend to make giving up come sooner than it might otherwise; from inability to tolerate physical connections with others while first dating, to the work of being a hinge when one partner wanted me invisible and I wanted to be treated like an absent partner- aka being able to at least text “happy thanksgiving, If not call, Though what broke is up probably would have anyways. And they have been few and far between- mainly, otherwise, it’s partnered people who cannot give high commitment and keep their partners, or choose not to.
/
 
Last edited:
I would prefer all three in each relationship. I had all three with my wife. The two relationships I had in Seattle were too young to have gotten to a commitment stage. My relationship with Mary is more like a friendship so not a lot of passion.
 
Dunno. I feel like there's a few false dichotomies going on here.

For starters, "many poly people" aren't very good at clearly defining "polyamory" much less practicing it. ;) People are free to call themselves (or each other) whatever they wish, but that doesn't make it factual. Like, "having more than one sex partner" is probably nonmonogamy... but of itself isn't enough to qualify as polyamory. A continuous string of one-night stands & casual encounters... not poly. Keeping the existence of a lover secret from a partner... not so much.

Then there's root assumptions of the thread. In a milieu of intimacy & commitment & passion, where does a sense of "deep abiding love" fit in?

Taking a step back, it's clear that those three terms are themselves vague & liable to all sorts of interpretation. Like, is fucking "intimate"? or "passionate"? Is continuing to live with someone you truly loathe "commitment"?

Is "commitment" a simple matter of "doing what you say you'll do," or "pretending that this whole thing will go on forever," or something between?

Okay, for the moment I'll assume we're all kinda on the same page. :) Still, I don't see those qualities as static -- they ebb & flow, daily if not hourly. At one time I sat back & thought of seven distinct moments (in a 12-year primary relationship) at which I truly fell back in love with Annie.

But it'd be a bit goofy to demand that we were constantly at some stable level of I or C or P. Sometimes we just weren't particularly interested in sex with each other; later, we might spend all day at work obsessing about each other & literally rip each other naked as soon as we got in the house.

And why is polyamory/"polyamory" being singled out here? Is Monogamism somehow superior at maintaining all three variables at a high level? I mean, it claims such, but is rarely required to deliver, so generally doesn't.

1234567 said:
if I want all 3 aspects in one relationship— am I really looking in the wrong place if I look for this in poly?
Click to expand...
The question is (perhaps unintentionally) dishonest.
  • expecting all three factors to be maintained constantly at a high level by/with one other person is Romanticist nonsense
  • Romanticist nonsense is a vital part of Monogamism
  • Romanticist nonsense gets in the way of problem solving
  • problem solving is a vital part of polyamory
So... well, yeah, I guess poly is NOT the place. :D
 
Hi 1234567,

I just have one partner, we have commitment and some intimacy. And I am satisfied with that. On the other hand, I don't mind passion when it's there. And in my imagination, I can picture having two partners, with passion, commitment, and intimacy (all three) with each of the two. I think it's possible, even though no actual instances of it come to my mind. [shrug] Anyway, that's the extent of my opinion/knowledge.

Regards,
Kevin T.
 
Ravenscroft said:
Dunno. I feel like there's a few false dichotomies going on here.

For starters, "many poly people" aren't very good at clearly defining "polyamory" much less practicing it. ;) People are free to call themselves (or each other) whatever they wish, but that doesn't make it factual. Like, "having more than one sex partner" is probably nonmonogamy... but of itself isn't enough to qualify as polyamory. A continuous string of one-night stands & casual encounters... not poly. Keeping the existence of a lover secret from a partner... not so much.

Then there's root assumptions of the thread. In a milieu of intimacy & commitment & passion, where does a sense of "deep abiding love" fit in?

Taking a step back, it's clear that those three terms are themselves vague & liable to all sorts of interpretation. Like, is fucking "intimate"? or "passionate"? Is continuing to live with someone you truly loathe "commitment"?

Is "commitment" a simple matter of "doing what you say you'll do," or "pretending that this whole thing will go on forever," or something between?

Okay, for the moment I'll assume we're all kinda on the same page. :) Still, I don't see those qualities as static -- they ebb & flow, daily if not hourly. At one time I sat back & thought of seven distinct moments (in a 12-year primary relationship) at which I truly fell back in love with Annie.

But it'd be a bit goofy to demand that we were constantly at some stable level of I or C or P. Sometimes we just weren't particularly interested in sex with each other; later, we might spend all day at work obsessing about each other & literally rip each other naked as soon as we got in the house.

And why is polyamory/"polyamory" being singled out here? Is Monogamism somehow superior at maintaining all three variables at a high level? I mean, it claims such, but is rarely required to deliver, so generally doesn't.


The question is (perhaps unintentionally) dishonest.
  • expecting all three factors to be maintained constantly at a high level by/with one other person is Romanticist nonsense
  • Romanticist nonsense is a vital part of Monogamism
  • Romanticist nonsense gets in the way of problem solving
  • problem solving is a vital part of polyamory
So... well, yeah, I guess poly is NOT the place. :D
Click to expand...


You’re going to have to take my word I know what poly is, and my data set are actually poly, not non-monogamous. The idea is to go for love and relationships. Not sex.

By deep prevailing love: love: all three are what the author of the theory defines as “consummate love”; commitment and intimacy “companionate love”, commitment alone “empty love”. I think all three probably qualify as deep prevailing love and having commitment and intimacy are close: the passion doesn’t have to be in the form of sex, but in the form of wanting to be together.

And I think with the words, they are very much subject to interpretation, but you know what they are not.

It’a Not an ebb and flow that defines a lack- it’s a clear absence. One where reality again and again points to “this is not a (committed/passionate/intimate) relationship,
And that’s can be independently verified by those close to you who know you and known them.

. Again, you have your ideas based on my writing, but you may have to take my word that expecting the impossible is not what is going on here.

Commitment is, in my definition, the willingness to do the work to help the relationship continue. Emotional, scheduling, and personal growth wise
To start. It’s willingness to be flexible with expectations. It gives you an assurance that you probably will continue, because you have the flexibility to weather bumps and changes. That includes keeping your word; it includes a self-examination to make sure you are pulling your weight; and especially, in means that when things get rough, the first assumption is to problem solve, not to bail.

So I think we’re still of different pages- you may be assuming incompetence in me of defining and using words, when it comes to polyamory that is perhaps not warranted? I struggle with how much detail to give so that peiplemdon’r gwt Bogged down in it, so assume (perhaps too often) when I write that there is a universal understanding I can assume of the reader, and they will assume of me.
 
Last edited:
I think my deeper question is: how much of a “unicorn hunt” is it to look for a deeply committed relationship in poly relationships if you don’t start off from a point of already having one and opening up.

It is possible- yes. But I see swveral roadblocks that keep coming up: reluctance to take on someone who has older partners as a “primary” (hate the word, but it is useful); the average partnered Joe or Josephine on the street looking for passion and/or intimacy which they generally need more of rather than commitment of which they have plenty; the average meta being way more threatened of signs of commitment (yes, I’d love to go on your next vacation with you) than passion or intimacy (yes, let’s start a sexual relationship).

Which is why I’m interested in people’s experiences.
 
To a greater or lesser extent, I have had all three in all of my long term relationships. The first two were exclusive live-in straight/het mono situations; the current two, with Jester and Boho, began within a year or each other and grew organically into a poly "V" arrangement.

I am somewhat demi sexual/sapiosexual - meaning I really can't/don't "do" casual sex. At least, I never have. Commitment is important to me, but it MUST go hand-in-hand with a strong mental and emotional connection (non sexual intimacy) and must start out quite strong regarding the passion aspect, which I am old enough to know almost always dies down somewhat after the NRE phase has worn off.

To me, passion goes hand in hand with intimacy and getting to know and love/fall for that person as a unique and fascinating individual. I don't really feel passion (i.e. physical chemistry) with a potential new partner unless I connect with them really strongly in other ways first.

I can, and often do, fall for my lovers on multiple levels, simultaneously: relating to another individual on both an emotional and intellectual plane, in a mentor/student capacity, as a life partner/mate/spouse, as parent/child, brother/sister (or like sisters) and as a best friend. The sexual/passionate side can involve a mild power exchange or kink dynamic, or not. I don't require it, but I DO like to experiment and am only truly interested sexually in partners who are playful and willing to try new things.

Once some form of authentic connection/intimacy has been established (even as platonic friends), a sexual attraction often blooms... however, as I'm not a casual sex person, and have had some traumas in my past, I often don't feel "safe" unless or until some degree of commitment has been expressed. And no, I NEVER push for this commitment. If a lover/potential partner does not freely and spontaneously wish to offer commitment on their side, it detracts from my ability to form a really strong, lasting bond with that person. I need to feel both love AND trust if a true partnership is going to result from attraction/intimacy.
 
I have intimacy, passion and commitment with Nox. I get that all from one person.

We didn't really have NRE. We started out dating and really enjoying each other. We both were friends and lovers, no commitment. We were both free to date who we wanted. Then as time went on, we became stronger and our relationship grew deeper. The commitment part came later. We first decided to not add anyone new, but keep any relationships we currently had. Then it morphed into only wanting each other (to include Nox and Kay). It almost feels we are living this high passion for each other every day and it gets stronger as time goes on.
 
Commitment, for me, is something that varies as to what it means for each relationship and comes with time as a relationship grows.

It is possible to have all three with multiple relationships from my experience and I do tend to desire all three from my partners eventually. If I grow close enough to someone to call them a partner or boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. the commitment is a necessary thing. As is the intimacy and passion. Without all three I may still have a relationship with them, but it's going to be a very casual thing, being honest.

I do have intimacy, passion and commitment with both of my current partners.
 
There's the recurring risk of vagueness, & of using undefined terms to define other terms.

As well, "passion" is usually a Romanticist indicator of relational success but actually an enshrinement of NRE/limerence (which generally DOES fade with time & experience).

How constant is "passion"? Sixty seconds after orgasm, are people still "passionate" or not?

Is a strong dyad that's been together happily for so many years they can practically read each other's minds... are they actually a failure, an empty shell, because they're not constantly pawing at each other's genitals at every opportunity?
Amarna said:
the commitment is a necessary thing.
Click to expand...
But... how do you know when it's actually there? How do you know it's not just an empty word or a passing sentiment? And how do you know when YOU are truly committed to someone, not just stuck on them in a limerent crush?

How long does "commitment" last? Can it be initiated & then it keeps working until it doesn't? Does it need to be renewed periodically, or maybe refreshed constantly?
 
I would propose that a couple that is that strong is passionate about BEING TOGETHER- and that "passion" doesn't have to be conflated with sex. True, sometimes, this fades- it's not a failure to not want to be together so much- but it's something that types a relationship when you do.
 
1234567 said:
I would propose that a couple that is that strong is passionate about BEING TOGETHER- and that "passion" doesn't have to be conflated with sex. True, sometimes, this fades- it's not a failure to not want to be together so much- but it's something that types a relationship when you do.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I would not confuse lust with passion. You can have passion for lots of things that you can't have sex with.

Which means did the original premise mean lust or passion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top