SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I know you weren't judging him. I was just saying that a mono person who happily dates poly people doesn't pose the same risks as a poly person who has the motivations that he does.
"Just so I can do it, too"
- Thread starter SEASONEDpolyAgain
- Start date
I honestly don’t see this as being any different than saying “in-laws are the price of being married”. I am a person that, all things being equal, prefers metas (and in-laws) that I don’t have a lot of responsibilities to / who don’t affect my life terribly much. I don’t seek out to date orphans, but it doesn’t really make me sad that my partner isn’t out to his father so I’m never gonna meet that dude, y’know? But my other partner is close to his mom so she becomes a much larger part of our life, and that is both… a benefit and a downside of our particular relationship. Everything has a price of admission. I’d far rather date someone who has their eyes open about that and is willing to pay it than some compersion-addicted polyamorous idealist who thinks that the entire codependent polycule should be emotionally entangled and that’s a “benefit” of poly…
Yes, love this, absolutely!
To me it's no different than someone who says that they'd prefer not to work but it's the price to pay to be a self-sufficient adult. That might sound jarring to someone who's very driven and passionate about their career, but it's a perfectly valid and responsible view shared by quite a lot of people.
And, it's better than poly people who say all the right things about poly beliefs, but in their behavior, actually make sure their partners are somehow just not able to logistically manage to date other people.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
Can you see why an employer might choose someone who doesn't make that kind of statement?
Bobbi
Well-known member
An employer who cares about that kind of statement (wants the employee dedicated to growing their career) doesn’t care about the employee at all. They want someone who will benefit their bottom line without proper compensation. Comparing capitalism to relationships feels very shallow to me unless you are having a transactional relationship.
i Think the point is that the motivation is less important than the relationship itself. Some people date for money, some date for status, some for children or security, but I’d argue everyone wants love. if the end result is a happy, mutual loving relationship then what does the motivation matter?
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
Because such motivations might mean that the relationship is only happy and mutually loving when your partner is dating other people. Maybe you can't achieve "happy, mutual loving" with someone who is only okay with poly when it's going very well for them.
We all have transactional relationships. You generally end the relationship when the transaction isn't valuable any longer.
I think a lot of the comments here are creating a false dichotomy where the guy has to either be at one extreme, or the other. For example, more than one person has said they'd prefer this guy over one who had some other type of flaw. Sure, I don't think it's the worst trait that a poly person could have, but it's not an attractive one, either. And you don't need to have either flaw.
Bobbi
Well-known member
If my partners happiness in OUR relationship is dependent on other people, then we have no relationship. Now they, as an individual, may need to date others for THEIR OWN happiness. That’s a different story.
again, if my relationship happiness is dependent on outside forces (poly going well for them) then we don’t have a good (compatible) relationship to begin with. We can be happy with our relationship and they can be unhappy because poly isn’t going well for them. If a person explodes a relationship when things in their life go haywire then I don’t want to be in that relationship. It sounds unhealthy to me.
Everyone has their preferences of what they will and won’t tolerate in a relationship. What might be a dealbreaker to you, might not be for someone else and vice versa. Only the one choosing to date him has to decide how that works with them. You asked others opinions and are getting them. Nobody has a better answer than anyone else. It’s whatever works for them.
True!
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
Well that's kind of the point of the whole thread. The way this guy thinks leaves it very open for the possibility that a) he won't be happy with you when he doesn't have other partners, and b) he won't be happy with you having other partners generally, but especially when he doesn't. That's why I'd see it as a red flag.
You realise this is just a discussion, right? You seem to be getting personally invested. It's just a thinking exercise. Nobody is getting dumped or anything
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I think stating that nobody has to date the guy is irrelevant to the thread.
It's like starting a thread asking if people would sign a prenup only for someone to say nobody needs to marry anyway.
I think those of us who, quite frankly, have more similar attitudes to “this guy” than not are feeling a bit attacked by your insistence that he’s terrible, especially since you’re making a leap that this attitude leads to bad behavior when inequity in dating pops up. Sure, this:
is a possibility… but honestly I’ve seen that behavior from people who espouse an enthusiastic belief that everyone in the relationship should be free to have partners or not. So really that _behavior_ is the red flag, not the underlying belief.
Honestly, I’d rather hire someone who was honest about the fact that while they enjoyed their job and wanted to be good at it, it was NOT the center of their life. Perhaps that’s because that’s how I relate to my work. But someone who says that? If I treat them well and pay them fairly, they’re gonna be loyal and not always be hunting for new opportunities and/or play politics to try and take _my_ job…
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
I never said he's terrible. In fact, I questioned the fact that I view him as a good poly player despite the fact he thinks that way. I questioned whether my screening process was faulty.
Remember, I fear things about such people that he's already shown me aren't a risk with him.
I’ll be honest, that’s the part that doesn’t make sense to me. You have a philosophical disagreement with an attitude despite having a solid example in front of you (in real life?) and several commenters on this board that agree yeah, that’s not far from their own attitude. I think we’ve chatted enough that hopefully you can see I’m not a walking red flag, nor are the people agreeing with me, nor is by your own admission the person that you’re talking about… so perhaps the attitude you’re decrying is just not the red flag that your philosophy might indicate? Definitely not a green flag either, as per your other examples, but I think a yellow, “caution while looking for more information” status might be in order.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
That's kind of how I started the thread.
But he's the only example I know of. I've come to recognise this as a red flag from concrete examples. Mostly from my younger poly days though.
If a guy (especially) said that, the chances of him being the type that will end up not being a good poly player would be very high. That's how it became a red flag for me and I would not proceed with someone who thinks that way.
But I was younger then. My dating pool was younger. I think that's a thing in poly. Things that were red flags in partners when I was in my 20s or early 30s may even be attractive to me now. I live a different lifestyle.
It could be that it is still a red flag when you're both at a certain point in your life.
As I said, he's the only example I have where someone I view as I do him has said "I think that way". There could be other people I know, admire poly-wise, and they think that way and I don't know.
That's why it's interesting for me to think about.