Is this ok or unfair?

[Dirtclustit]

It sounds like your boyfriend wasn't thinking...

or maybe he didn't translate his thoughts very accurately into words. Not to knock on your boyfriend, but saying he would love you more if you were poly was not a very smart or a respectful thing to say. If he honestly feels that way, I wouldn't be thinking long term with him.

That's a strange way to view love, and a really good way to plant seed of insecurities in your mind. Hopefully he will clear that up, so he doesn't sound either ignorant in regards to love, or manipulative (if he does understand love).

You may find people here have a chip on their shoulder towards you because you identify as being mono, but it will fade as they realize you are mono, but not mono plus expecting your partner to be mono. Whether it's true or not, people will tend to think mono doesn't only describe your intimate configuration, but your partner's as well.

Maybe your bf is having a little trouble understanding the difference, the same way some of the commentors might not be clear.

You sound extremely poly-friendly. You just know without any doubt how you share your life with those you love and experience that sharing.

Because, let's face it, technically "polyamory," or any non-monogamous relationship, implies explicit sex acts, but I would think you are a very loving person towards those you choose to share your life with and even very affectionate with hugs, embraces, or even kisses (more like the pecks on a cheek).

When it really comes down to it, people that truly love others and understand LOVE, there really isn't much difference between polyamory and monoamory. And it really is a bit strange how affectionate actual siblings with the same mother and father can be. For instance, a sister sitting on her brother's lap, with her arm around him, and heavily leaning into him, then as she leaves, kisses his cheek -- according to mainstream society's accepted beliefs, it makes a huge difference whether or not it's known they are siblings, or non-related, especially if one of them is married.

Physically showing affection towards others is not as cut and dried as genitals and mouths being involved. There are many acts that are very sensual, but not sex, and even sexual acts that aren't technically sex.

And many proclaim too that poly isn't about sex, so it is almost amusing to see people give you a hard time when your main concern with bf is whether or not his acts of love are maintained but not necessarily sex. That is pretty damn cool, I think. It's cool because for all the trash talking the whole "mono mentality" gets, I honestly don't see a majority of poly people having any better of an understanding. Definitely some people, but I know monos who understand love just as well as those few polys.

I think a lot of people seem to forget that genuine concern for others' well being and happiness (which is love) and when that isn't present, a genuine respect for others is a suitable substitute, and that makes alll the difference in the world. When knowledge of what it means to respect is adequate, showing that respect can carry any couple, any group, any community, state, country and even the world through almost anything,

And it can be like a cake walk.

When people understand love, and understand respect, every problem is immediately cleared up, because from my perspective, written and spoken forms of nearly all languages are far far more than adequate forms of communication. Maybe even overkill of the necessary level of being able to communicate.

Any and all problems ultimately come down to being just a bunch of bullshit. Problems have much less to do with people's ability to communicate, at the root of all problems is failure with honesty.

People get selfish and begin justifying their behavior.

People have learned to forgo their emotions and listen to their selves honestly, and they hotwire a short in their brain which I call denial. People known damn well when they are doing another wrong, or at the very least being disrespectful, when they fully understand that they are being counted on to behave respectfully.

For instance, the issue of meeting your metamours face to face, sitting down for more than a hello and handshake. If they are going to be fucking your spouse, I think that's the least they could do. While it's true that respect is a two-way street, that street is easily traveled when all parties involved understand what it means to love or respect another person, and to genuinely care about their well-being for more than the time your are hanging out with their lover.

When all parties genuinely do care, communication is seldom a problem, because each of you is honestly listening and understanding. When people are willing, it isn't a problem to communicate exactly what actions convey being loved and respected to you.

Genuine love and respect makes even hell a cake walk.

Disingenuous respect, bullshit and manipulations result in the long-drawn-out, seemingly endless fighting for every inch of compromise in discussions about boundaries that get crossed anyway are not always the innocent happenstance where nobody can be blamed.

There is always a reason when what should be a cake walk in heaven turns into hell.

Whatever happens in your relationship, lemondrop, if any problems occur, I doubt it will be due to your understanding of relationships. You seem to understand them quite well. Hopefully you will find people who "get it" as inherently as you, and if they don't, I hope you can teach them. If they can't be taught, I hope you recognize it sooner rather than later.

I began typing just thinking I was going to tell you that it will be hard to remain honest enough with yourself, to not justify claiming his poly relationships are costing you dearly, and falsely claim that his love is dwindling, when the truth may be more centered in jealousy issues. Because that is what most people do, sometimes even those who are "poly." But the more I read of your responses, gave me the impression that it isn't likely to be a problem with you. You are light years ahead of trivial little games.

 

[Marcus]

You may find people here have a chip on their shoulder towards you because you identify as being mono, but it will fade as they realize you are mono, but not mono plus expecting your partner to be mono. Whether it's true or not, people will tend to think mono doesn't only describe your intimate configuration, but your partner's, as well.

Yes, you've identified... yet again... that not everyone agrees. You have... yet again... determined that online discussion forums are exactly the place for these kinds of discussions. You have pointed out... yet again... the fact that you cannot stand reading discussions in which there are participants who do not agree 100% on every single point presented.

 

[Dirtclustit]

yet again... yet again....

You're right, Marcus. Forgive me! How dare I state an opinion that might point to the mono having a better understanding of poly than the anarchist grammarian, thus your bottom slightly bruised and hurt?

Was I too harsh?

 

[london]

I don't think you'd get that same compersion from seeing your partner hang with friends and family as you would from seeing them have other successful, loving relationships. I can only compare this to kink, personally, and I'd definitely love a partner who didn't allow me to get my sub on less than one who did. Assuming everything else was the same. That basically means I have a preference for kinky people because I get more gratification from them.

Yes, there are more ways than sex that I can exercise my submissive tendencies, but sometimes a partner won't even give you the room to do that. It feels like a big part of why I have relationships is missing. I don't need a total power exchange, but I do need a dynamic where I get that warm glow of subbing out often. If the OP's partner thrives on compersion and cannot derive it from watching her friendships and relationships with her kin blossom, then it's a major source of gratification admonished.

 

[IndieSolo]

You may find people here have a chip on their shoulder towards you because you identify as being mono . . .

Seriously? What are you talking about? There are lots of mono people who belong here, many are senior members, and all of them are welcome here.

Because, let's face it, technically "poly," or any non-monogamous relationship, implies explicit sex acts . . .

Again, what are you talking about? Explicit sex acts? Explicitly which sex acts? There is no one particular sexual activity that is brought to my mind when the word "polyamory" is uttered. And there are plenty of poly people who have non-sexual partners. I think most people would agree that being polyamorous would mean a focus on loving more than one person, but not specifically about sex or a certain sexual activity, though of course sex and sexual issues are an important part of most love relationships. But how did you dream up this notion that poly is associated explicitly with a particular sex act????

Physically showing affection towards others is not as cut and dried as genitals and mouths being involved. There are many acts that are very sensual, but not sex, and even sexual acts that aren't technically sex.

What does the above have to do with this thread? I didn't see any questions from the OP about what is and isn't sex.

Many proclaim to that poly isn't about sex. So it is almost amusing to see people give you a hard time when your main concern with bf is whether or not his acts of love are maintained but not necessarily sex, and that is pretty damn cool, I think. It's cool because for all the trash talking the whole "mono mentality" gets, I honestly don't see a majority of poly people having any better of an understanding. Definitely some people , but I know monos who understand love just as well as those few polys.

Dirtclusty, you are not making sense again. I didn't see anyone here giving the OP a hard time. We asked questions and challenged certain statements to gain clarity. But I don't really even think the issue being discussed here was about sex. It was about ways in which the relationship might change and certain expectations Lemondrop and her BF have about opening up.

The whole second half of your post, from, "I think a lot of people seem to forget . . ." on down to the end, makes no sense whatsoever to me. Do you actually know what it is you were trying to say? I certainly can't figure it out. Are you trying to rip apart and kill another thread?

 

[YouAreHere]

In the beginning of my relationship with my partner, I did feel as though he was pushing me to be poly. There was the "maybe everyone's poly at heart" stuff, the "I fully expect you to date" stuff... It took time, patience, and a couple good-sized arguments to finally get to the point where we both love each other for who we are - and that includes his being poly and my being mono, with neither one of us pushing an agenda on the other.

I can only suggest time, patience, and hopefully not the arguments to the OP. It sounds like you're coming into this from a really healthy place to start, and that will go miles.

Seriously? What are you talking about? There are lots of mono people who belong here, many are senior members, and all of them are welcome here.

I was extremely shocked to see "senior" next to my name (until I looked at my post count). I still hope to get carded once in a while, but I'm not counting on it.

In response to DC's post re. poly implying "explicit sex acts," I can see this, sorta. Many times, when I've told friends that my partner is poly and he has another GF, I've gotten the "So you all..." (picture the person tipping their head down, yet maintaining eye contact, and twirling their finger toward the table in the apparently universal "get it on together" signal). I've actually been surprised with how often it's assumed that we're all sexually active with each other. Unfortunately, that assumption leads me to do more explaining to undo perceptions. I've since started using the term "open," and folks don't seem to make the same assumptions. *shrug* I didn't expect that, but I guess it exists. And this was before the Showtime show.

 

[Marcus]

Are you trying to rip apart and kill another thread?

I have decided this must be the goal of said poster. I have thus joined the "ignore" bandwagon in hopes that if enough people ignore him he will lose interest in tanking threads.

I don't think you'd get that same compersion from seeing your partner hang with friends and family as you would from seeing them have other successful, loving relationships. I can only compare this to kink, personally, and I'd definitely love a partner who didn't allow me to get my sub on with them less than one who did. Assuming everything else was the same. That basically means I have a preference for kinky people because I get more gratification from them.

Red text added by me for clarification. You do mean to say that a partner who won't indulge you in a particular interest of yours is less interesting that one who will? ...not that they don't 'allow' you to indulge your interests with other people.

This as an unfortunate limitation. People generally have a number of interests and have a variety of friends and family with whom they can explore these various interests. If my cousin doesn't like gaming but instead likes going to the range and popping off shotguns... I'm up for it! I would argue again that it does not devalue the relationship with each person; quite the contrary.

Now this is, of course, assuming that you have more than just the one interest. If being sub with someone is the one thing you enjoy doing then it would make sense that you would exclusively associate with people who can indulge this interest with you. That's not a life I want to lead, having only one thing I enjoy doing.

 

[Chimera]

This as an unfortunate limitation. People generally have a number of interests and have a variety of friends and family with whom they can explore these various interests. If my cousin doesn't like gaming but instead likes going to the range and popping off shotguns... I'm up for it! I would argue again that it does not devalue the relationship with each person; quite the contrary.

I think this is one of the issues going on here with the OP's partner and it's often a very Western problem. We have an idea that "equality" has to mean "the same" at an individual level, when in fact, equality can mean an equivalence between different things. There can be equality in a poly-mono relationship if both people are getting and giving back to the other in the relationship in ways they want/need. It doesn't have to look the same (i.e., I have a gf, you have to have a gf). I wonder if the BF assumes that for him to have an equitable poly relationship, his GF must also be poly. Not the case, but fairly typical thinking.

Also, I really do think there's an initial guilt feeling that happens and makes folks push their SOs (if they're in a relationship) to be poly too. Again, if it's "equal" it doesn't seem wrong. On the flip side, it's also common to hear someone say, "I want an other, because s/he has one! It's not fair!" It's such a common knee-jerk reaction, rather than evaluating if one's needs/desires are being met in they way they want them to.

 

[LovingRadiance]

It seems a common theme that people struggle to accept differences in each other. Sigh.

My bf is mono. He doesn't want other lovers and hasn't had any in the last 15 years. I am poly and do. I don't love him less for being himself. That's silly. Why would I want him to try to be someone else?

But each new partner does change things, as does time. Expecting it not to is setting yourself up for headaches. Better to be clear in your head that things will change, and consider what changes would be cool, or maybe even improve things.

 

[Dirtclustit]

Definitely

It is inevitable that something will change. While an only child shouldn't expect to be parented any less, an additional child will always change things. And it seems that most monos who consent to their partner's practice of polyamory have a hard time being completely honest about whether or not their view of the changed dynamic is really about not meeting needs that were previously met, or if it's really a jealousy issue.

When I first began reading this thread, I thought I would just point that out to lemondrops, but as I read on I got the feeling that she may actually be technically more "old school" poly then many New-Age poly writers, as it sounded to me that the only reason she would say she doesn't "love" many is because for her "love" might also by enforced definition include sex.

It's like a bizarro world or something. We have a bunch of people who masquerade under the "poly identity" because they want to fuck other people, so they commandeer the word love, and weld it to sex, claiming it's age-old tradition of Freedom in America.

But if a New Age definition has to remain boringly static and definite without any waver, it seems that it would then exclude people who may well be more poly at their core, but not allowed to wear said label without chastisement from the democratically elected poly officials of written and spoken word.

 

[Dirtclustit]

I wasn't trying to be offensive

or tear apart any threads, I was just gently explaining the fact that a mono may feel that those who pick up a poly flag and wave it sometimes might come off as having a chip on their shoulder.

Had I known it would be taken as an attempt to rip apart threads I wouldn't have said as harshly as a few of you took it.

Maybe it has a little bit more to do with my calling a few others out on their crusade against married people looking to form a triad?


As far as my gibberish thoughts go, google is working on a translator, until then most poly pros people say they have hit the ignore button, they tell me it works so long as others don't quote me, and I promise you I won't be offended, and I will even attempt to be more genteel, so that the anarchist isn't offended by my vicious attacks on others' poly-ness.

However, I won't attempt to looe my attitude or employ subtlety, as that only works for those who don't want problems solved. It creates drama. If you have any real questions about my comments, ask directly. Otherwise, I advise the delusional, drug-addict schpiel, as it seems to work for all the other prominent poly-oriented fellow commentators/writers/posters.

 

[london]

Actually, I need to be submissive in all my relationships

There was a time when I thought this meant I needed masochism and extreme, rough sex to feel submissive to someone. I realise that I don't need that at all. I just need someone who will let me serve them, sexually and otherwise. Someone who takes the lead in our relationship. This I need. Before now, I've had partners who wanted this role in the relationship, and for that reason, there was nothing for me to sub out on. I need all my partners to allow me to take this role. With some it includes being tied up and paddled, with others it means that I always cook dinner, and things like that.

I don't count this as an interest, like watching sport on TV. That is a hobby that I don't need all my partners to indulge in, or even one of them. Being submissive in my relationships is something I need.

 

[london]

The old love vs sex dichotomy

It's like Bizarro World or something. We have a bunch of people who masquerade under the "poly identity" because they want to fuck other people, so they commandeer the word love, and weld it to sex, claiming it's age-old tradition of Freedom in America.

I'm poly because I want to fuck loads of guys. Just random, one-off encounters that I can have whenever I like, without having to explain anything to anyone. I just want to be able to love more than one of the people I fuck, too. I don't have to love all the people I fuck, though, just have the potential to love more than one person. That's all I need to be poly. It has nothing to do with how much sex I have, how little sex I have, or whom I have that sex with.

 

[Dirtclustit]

there isn't anything wrong with sex

and so many people live the entire lives with enforced beliefs that sex shouldn't be enjoyed, or that certain types of sex acts you should feel shame for desiring, and that is wrong.

Every person alive should feel free to desire AND engage in sex in any way they desire when all parties involved are of legal age, fully knowledgeable, by their own will explicitly consent. The should NOT be subjected to shame about their beliefs, sex is sacred, and like all things sacred it should be as personal or even anonymous as all parties involved agree on. Nobody has the right to tell you how you should engage in sex unless you ask them.

I can see how my choice of words like "fuck" came off as derogatory, I shouldn't have used those words. What I was voicing my displeasure with was is the very recent attitude that has crept into non-monogamy that appears to me to come from the huge jump in the number of people who openly discuss being "poly" and the reason there has been such an dramatic increase in people discussing non-monogamy is because of the anonymity of the internet.

It's the attitude that disgusts me. It's not anybodies opposing views, I like people who think differently, it's the attitude of telling people what they can and can't do if they are to continue labeling themselves "poly".

and I am not the best example as I too can come off sounding like I am trying to put a fence around a specific set of aspects that define the many flavors of non-monogamy. Pre-internet, that type of attitude was only present among certain social groups, or "communes" and they were easily avoided until it was realized that there is a profit to be made by selling "how to" books as if there are conversion kits you can buy to add an attachment to yourself and now your poly. I rattles me because I see it becoming like Christianity where there will be four or five major denominations who all claim to be The True practice of polyamory and it sickens me

When I mentioned "explicit sex acts" to be considered poly, what I meant is that most people aren't considered non-monogamous, or more specifically "poly" unless they are having sex. My point was that nobody considers a person poly because they very affectionately hug, or embrace. Most people aren't considered poly no matter how sensual their interactions are.

So that one detail, will cause a person to identify as mono. I know people think my point of view is way off, but I feel that just by claiming mono, a poster is subjected to a significantly higher degree of subtle snarkyness. Which I believe goes beyond the just being honest. I didn't think anybody was attacking this poster, but I often get the feeling a new person may feel more alone than is necessary and doesn't have to happen, nobody needs to feel like an outsider.

People say they can't make sense of my words, the jist of it is that Love is Love, and when people that understand Love, there is NO difference between a "mono" and a "poly" individual.

Not that my definition is true for anybody but me -- but to me "poly" is full disclosure, complete honesty -- to me it's not something that you can just decide to do (it=honesty), honesty is a practice, if you don't practice it you will end up hurting others by using truth as a weapon. I also firmly believe that people are blind to obvious truths that the only thing that keeps these obvious truths from being recognized, is because our minds are polluted with lies that we believe are truth.

Before I quit making sense, I should restate that from the OP's words, I consider her outlook on life to be be labeled as: "She understands Love" which to me means you don't need a mono or poly label. But unless your mind thinks like me I guess the most accurate way to describe it would be a person who behaves like an exemplary "poly" (full disclosure, doesn't mislead partner, etc..) but speaking of her behavior in regards only to sex and engaging in it is the "mono" label she uses.

yes I may be way off, I am not trying to be accurate with my kneejerk first reactions, I just believe more in the notion of distinguishing people as understanding love in their relationships and when people have different (incompatible) views of what they understand to be love. I believe it doesn't matter how much work people do to try and make any relationship work, it only works when all parties involved understand Love in the same or compatible ways.

She seems extremely compatible with what most would label "poly". I evidently didn't do a good job stating that and yes if it isn't obvious, I think some peoples opinions should be exactly how she shouldn't think about it if she desires satisfying relationship in her current situation. If my statement of suggesting that some have a chip on their shoulder upsets them, I guess it comes down to me saying fuck them, I believe it it's better to be honest and direct otherwise the subtle, civilized approach just breeds animosity

(and no, I don't consider me being very direct here to Nycindie and Marcus to by the same thing as the "not sugar coating" I have complained about elsewhere)

 

[london]

What I think you're on about is when people, often guys, use a term like non monogamous or polyamorous to describe a time where they want to play the field. I think this happens for two reasons. Firstly, assuming that this is a guy, if he says that he doesn't want a relationship but does want casual sex/hanging out for now, he is labelled negatively. Mainly because he isn't meeting the needs of women who want more than that and they think that make him a douche. So, he adopts a label that explains that he isn't a douche. This, though, creates problems because polyamory doesn't mean "not ready to settle", it more means "might want to settle with more than one person". The other thing that I see happens is that women apply this label themselves to men who don't want to settle down yet, our with them. The guy explains that he wants to keep his options open, see other people to and she then calls him "poly". When it doesn't work out how she wanted it to, she starts saying "all these poly guys are dicks".

It's all so possible that someone poly doesn't want to settle down with them and it has nothing to do with their ability to commit or anything like that.

 

[london]

Polyamory is a form of consensual non monogamy where a person has the potential of maintaining multiple romantic relationships with the knowledge and consent of all involved. Once this had been established, remaining forthcoming and honest with your partners is advisable, that would be "good poly", not doing so doesn't stop it being poly, it just makes it "bad poly".

 

[Marcus]

There was a time when I thought this meant I needed masochism and extreme rough sex to feel submissive to someone. I realise that I don't need that at all. I just need someone who will let me serve them, sexually and otherwise. Someone who takes the lead in our relationship. This I need. Before now, I've had partners who wanted this role in the relationship and for that reason, there was nothing for me to sub out on. I need all my partners to allow me to take this role. With some it includes being tied up and paddled, with others it means that I always cook dinner and things like that.

I don't count this is an interest, like watching sport on TV. That is a hobby that I don't need all my partners to indulge in, our even one of them. Being submissive in my relationships is something I need.

I get what you're saying, london. I's closer to an orientation. I only dig females, so I need all of my sexual partners to be female. Though I would still say that my male friends, while they do not have the ability to qualify as romantic partners for me, do not get a lower status simply because they cannot sate that one particular drive. I still love them and enjoy their company; we share lots of wonderful things together. They just don't happen to fill that one very specific role.

However! I have still seen no evidence that this is what is going on with the OP. I would agree with Chimera (and I think you also mentioned it at one point) that this is most likely just a guilt issue and he's confusing equality with happiness. He is probably trying to get the OP to date so that he doesn't feel weird about leaving her alone for the weekend as he goes off with one of his girls.

 

[Marcus]

Temaining forthcoming and honest with your partners is advisable, that would be "good poly", not doing so doesn't stop it being poly, it just makes it "bad poly".

This is something that (some) poly folk on this board tend to get a little confused about. Mono people who are dishonest don't stop being mono all of a sudden. They just stop being what I would call "healthy." Same with poly.

Poly just means multiple loves. It doesn't have anything to do with sex fetishes, honesty, communication, hang gliding, or ultimate Frisbee... just multiple loves. Any other traits of the relationship should be considered separate issues (because they are).

 

[london]

It relates to the OP because, as I said earlier, maybe her being monogamous removes something that gives him gratification. Enough gratification that it limits how much he can love her.

 

[Magdlyn]

Poly just means multiple loves. It doesn't have anything to do with... honesty, communication...

I'd have to disagree. Polyamory means loving more than one. BUT, love (amor) includes respect. Respect includes listening to others' needs and accomodating them to the best of your ability.

If you're doing "poly" but lying and cheating and indulging in NRE to the point of neglecting your OSO(s) needs, you're not poly. You're just fucking around.

If you're doing "monogamy" but lying to your SO, cheating on them, ignoring them, not giving them enough attention or sex or romance, you're not really mono, you're just hiding behind the banner of monogamy while being a fucking asshat.

If you say you're Christian, but lying, cheating, stealing, not praying, not following the Golden Rule, never reading your Bible, focusing on hating certain groups of people, going to services Sunday morning and forgetting about God and your fellowship with your congregation except that one hour a week, IMO, you're not really Christian.

In other words, calling yourself poly or mono or Christian isn't enough. Mere words are not enough. Actions matter.