Mono-Poly-Mono

[iga97]

I am mono girl, and my girlfriend is poly. Let's call her A. We have been a couple for 4 years. We live together. Now A has started dating another mono person, W. We've created a vee, mono-poly-mono.

I have set a condition-- hierarchical polyamory. I can't imagine the three of us living together or having her live alternately with me and him. He plans to marry her and have children. I want to have something that will be only for me, that will distinguish these two relationships. They have both agreed.

W said he could be second, that it didn't bother him. He respects me. And yet I feel anxious and worried. What will happen when NRE ends? I'm afraid that then W and A will change their minds. I'm afraid that they will want something more, that what they have will no longer be enough. I'm afraid that they will want to start a second family or that we will create one family together, which I will never agree to. I want to be primary.

A says that won't happen and if W gets involved, she will break up with him. W said he didn't want to come between us and that he would leave if it went too far. But how can I be sure that they will keep their word and not change their minds along the way? Now it's easy for them to say that, but when commitment appears it may be different.

Also, why does a poly person prefer mono people for a relationship? Always A has dated mono people. She says she is jealous and doesn't want her partner to date other people, but isn't this a denial of polyamory? I thought maybe she wasn't poly and there was something wrong with me. That if she met the right person, she wouldn't date others.

She is bisexual. She says that whenever she was in a relationship with a man, she missed a woman, and vice versa. That's why she's poly. Because she was looking for the right man and she had already found the woman. She wants to be in a relationship with both a woman and a man. And she doesn't feel the need to meet more people. She always dreamed of having a vee with a mono woman and a mono man. Sometimes she jokes that if two genders were in one person, she would be mono.

I'm also bisexual, and I don't miss a man, I can't imagine dating anyone else. I want to be faithful to one person. I can't understand it.

 

[kdt26417]

Hello iga97,

It sounds like you just want something nice for yourself, something special that will set your relationship apart from the A-W relationship. There is nothing wrong with that, just tell A what you want, and don't settle for less. This will be a good test, to see if A really cares about you, as much as she claims. W already agreed to be secondary, so you know you can depend on him.

It sounds like you can't depend on A and W to let you be the primary, like they're only agreeing to it now because of NRE. I suggest you sit them down and have a long conversation with them about how important this is to you, and why it matters. You need to get their solemn word that they will make you the primary. And I'm not sure you can trust them even then.

You need to be able to depend on W to walk away if things go too far. Make sure you make this clear with W. Get his solemn word that he will do it. And even then I don't know if you can trust him. Maybe the thing to do is to walk away yourself if they do not keep their word. You can find someone else who will respect your place as a primary.

I do not understand why A only dates mono people. Maybe A wants the privileges of poly for herself, but she doesn't want her partners to have the same privileges. I think you have to ask yourself if you really want to commit to someone (A) who acts like that. A does not want you (or W) to have any second partners, but A wants two partners for herself.

Do not let A treat you like this. It is like you are just the sexual component for a bisexual fantasy of hers. You are an object to her. You are just there to fill the male-female slots she wants in her bisexual fantasy. This is not true poly on her part, it is not even true bisexuality. You know that, because you are bisexual and yet you don't require two partners for yourself.

Anyway these are some of my thoughts.
Regards,
Kevin T.

 

[icesong]

Mod note: thread moved from User Guidelines to Poly Relationship Corner

 

[GalaGirl]

I'm sorry you struggle. I mean this kindly, ok?

But how can I be sure that they will keep their word and not change their minds along the way?

You can't, because A is in charge of A, and W is in charge of W. But here's the thing. YOU are in charge of YOU.

If things have been fine so far, trust has been built, they've each kept their word in the past, you may have to find a way to chill, not crank your own self up, and not fret over stuff that isn't even happening.

And if things DO change to stuff you don't want to be doing (because everyone reserves the right to change their mind), you have to become ok with saying "No, thanks. I don't want this. I love you a lot. But not even for you will I do stuff I don't really want or stuff that hurts me." And then you bow out, end it with A.

You CAN have a limit of tolerance. You do not have to go along with what other people want, especially if it goes against your own grain. You get to change your mind too. I think you could examine your fearfulness.

Also, why does a poly person prefer mono people for a relationship? Always A has dated mono people. She says she is jealous and doesn't want her partner to date other people, but isn't this a denial of polyamory?

Well, at least A's honest about it. She wants poly for HERSELF and not for her partners. She wants them dating her only. If everyone is cool with that kind of arrangement? Fine. People can pick that for themselves. I don't think that's an "all poly people thing." That's just a her thing. **A** prefers dating in mono-poly structures so she doesn't have to deal with metas or her jealousy.

I wouldn't be into that myself, but I'm not in this mix of people. I prefer it be fair on all sides where all sides can date others. Then it is on ME if I choose to exercise the option or not, and not like I don't have the option at all.

You get to decide if you are up for that deal or not.

I thought maybe she wasn't poly and that there was something wrong with me, that if she met the right person, she wouldn't date others.

I suggest you examine that belief. Why are you not good enough for you just on your own? Why are you only good enough if A "picks you out?" Why does something have to be wrong with you? Sometimes the people we date don't pan out long term because there is not enough in common. It happens. It doesn't mean anyone is bad. Breaking up is a reasonable risk of dating.

She is bisexual. She says that whenever she was in a relationship with a man, she missed a woman, and vice versa. That's why she's poly. Because she was looking for the right man and she had already found the woman.

Being bisexual is not a hall pass to have "one of each." If she's poly and wants more than one partner, fine. She can be upfront about being POLY and wanting more than one partner. But if she's coming at it like she's bisexual, so she's ENTITLED to one of each, and you just have to lump it, that's weird to me. You don't have to be up for that if you prefer monogamy for yourself. Your consent to participate in things or not belongs to YOU.

It's not like, "Oh. I really prefer monogamy, but because she's bi, I just have to lump it and be ok with her having another partner in the gender I'm not." YOU choose what situations you want to get involved in. You are not obligated to go along with something like that if it is not your cup of tea.

She wants to be in a relationship with both a woman and a man. And she doesn't feel the need to meet more people. She always dreamed of having a vee with a mono woman and a mono man. Sometimes she jokes that if two genders were in one person, she would be mono.

She can dream whatever. It doesn't automatically make it so.

I'm also bisexual, and I don't miss a man. I can't imagine dating anyone else. I want to be faithful to one person.

And this is YOU and what you want. You seem to prefer monogamy, where you partner wants the same as you. Is that true?

I can't understand it.

What's there to understand? You two are different people and have different approaches and different desires. That sometimes happens. The crux of it seems to be if you two are compatible for dating each other or not. Would you be happier in a monogamous thing? Are you bending into pretzels just to stick with A or avoid a break up? What's all this fearfulness rooted in?

What happens if/when the primary/secondary model gets outgrown-- if A or W start bucking for "co-primary?" Do you know your limit? I encourage you do your soul searching.

Galagirl

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

As a queer woman, it sounds like A wants a situation where she has an adoring girlfriend and the formal comfort of a heterosexual relationship. In these situations, I've never seen the woman become a co-parent with her girlfriend.

 

[Magdlyn]

As a queer woman, it sounds like A wants a situation where she has an adoring girlfriend and the formal comfort of a heterosexual relationship. In these situations, I've never seen the woman become a co-parent with her girlfriend.

I am in relationships with one of each gender and it's not because I enjoy the "formal comfort of a heterosexual relationship." In fact, I feel kind of weird when I go out with my bf, since we "pass" as a straight couple. Luckily he's black, I'm white and he's obviously younger than me! So we still look unconventional. ;P I have had white bfs closer to my age before, and we did pass as "normie" couples, and it actually felt a bit almost... dishonest to me.

I don't date men so that I can have "formal comfort," fit in, whatever. I like men because they are men.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I am in relationships with one of each gender and it's not because I enjoy the "formal comfort of a heterosexual relationship." In fact, I feel kind of weird when I go out with my bf, since we "pass" as a straight couple. Luckily he's black, I'm white and he's obviously younger than me! So we still look unconventional. ;P I have had white bfs closer to my age before, and we did pass as "normie" couples, and it actually felt a bit almost... dishonest to me.

I don't date men so that I can have "formal comfort," fit in, whatever. I like men because they are men.

I think your situation is rather different from the OP. Her girlfriend is in a relationship with a cis man who openly wants to have kids with her and get married, despite knowing the OP doesn't want that type of poly. She doesn't seem to be doing anything but encouraging that.

That's the Poly level.

On the Queer Level, especially when you're poly, you have to ensure that your relationship bypasses any heteronormative assumptions if you want society to offer you the couple's privilege that people in relationships often find validating. That's harder when you've got a cis male partner, too.

If you're trying to let your same gender partner in a poly situation know that you have every intention of your relationship being "primary", you don't date a cis other gender partner who is planning marriage and kids with you.

This is where I've always seen the heterosexual relationship become a life partnership that takes priority in the way I described.

All of this becomes less prominent as you age out of that sort of childbearing and rearing age and are less dependent on the escalator to help secure life milestones like (final) home ownership, or indeed kids.

 

[Magdlyn]

I am mono girl, and my girlfriend is poly. Let's call her A. We have been a couple for 4 years. We live together. Now A has started dating another mono person, W. We've created a vee, mono-poly-mono.

I have set a condition-- hierarchical polyamory. I can't imagine the three of us living together or having her live alternately with me and him.

So you agree to be with a poly woman as long as she devotes the majority of her time to you? You don't want her to live half with you and half with someone else. Maybe you aren't really suited to be with a poly person long term, then. You want the semblance of monogamy from her. Commitment to you, and something more casual with someone else is acceptable (and probably not ideal, if you're honest?).

He plans to marry her and have children. I want to have something that will be only for me, that will distinguish these two relationships. They have both agreed.

How long have A and W been together? Does A want to get married to W and have kids? You just say what W wants.

If they've only been together a few months, it seems to me a bit early to be talking about marriage and kids. Maybe A isn't right for W, long term. Has she ever talked to YOU about getting married and/or having kids with you?

What exactly is it you want that "will be only for you"? A house? Marriage? Kids?

W said he could be second, that it didn't bother him. He respects me.

So, he said he wanted marriage and kids, but then he backtracked and said the opposite, when you objected?

And yet I feel anxious and worried. What will happen when NRE ends? I'm afraid that then W and A will change their minds. I'm afraid that they will want something more, that what they have will no longer be enough.

Hmm, well, generally NRE passing doesn't automatically lead to MORE enmeshment. Sometimes it leads to a breakup, if the couple is not long-term compatible. You and A have weathered four years together. Is she committed to you and happy with you?

I'm afraid that they will want to start a second family or that we will create one family together, which I will never agree to. I want to be primary.

You don't ever have to live with another one of A's partners. You don't even need to spend time with them. So, that shouldn't be a worry. You can want parallel poly, not kitchen table poly.

A says that won't happen and if W gets involved, she will break up with him. W said he didn't want to come between us and that he would leave if it went too far.

OK, so the marriage and kids thing together was just a casual thought? They are both willing to keep things pretty casual and break up if you just say the word? That seems a bit odd. Love doesn't work that way. Letting a third party dictate their relationship is not a very firm base to build a relationship upon.

I do wonder if they are being strictly honest about keeping their relationship in such an uneasy place. Maybe they are placating you.

But how can I be sure that they will keep their word and not change their minds along the way? Now it's easy for them to say that, but when commitment appears it may be different.

Yes. You can't be sure.

Also, why does a poly person prefer mono people for a relationship? Always A has dated mono people. She says she is jealous and doesn't want her partner to date other people, but isn't this a denial of polyamory?

It's not a denial of polyamory. It's just a preference. It is less complicated and stressful for a poly person if one (or more) of their partners is mono. Less moving parts. More availability. Some mono people are fine having a poly person be their only partner, too.

I thought maybe she wasn't poly and there was something wrong with me. That if she met the right person, she wouldn't date others.

She is bisexual. She says that whenever she was in a relationship with a man, she missed a woman, and vice versa. That's why she's poly. Because she was looking for the right man and she had already found the woman. She wants to be in a relationship with both a woman and a man. And she doesn't feel the need to meet more people. She always dreamed of having a vee with a mono woman and a mono man.

I like that arrangement too, and that is what I have established, except that both my partners are poly. However, my female partner's other partner is a guy who chooses not to date others (although he could if he wanted to). So she's got the ease of him always being available for her.

Sometimes she jokes that if two genders were in one person, she would be mono.

Well, there is a gender called "non-binary" that does combine both male and female traits. (But I have a feeling that wouldn't suffice for A, really.)

I'm also bisexual, and I don't miss a man. I can't imagine dating anyone else. I want to be faithful to one person. I can't understand it.

That's fine. You're monogamous and bi, while A is polyamorous and bi. If she was a lesbian, she might still want two partners.

 

[Magdlyn]

I think your situation is rather different from the OP. Her girlfriend is in a relationship with a cis man

She didn't say he was cis, but we can probably assume that.

who openly wants to have kids with her and get married, despite knowing the OP doesn't want that type of poly. She doesn't seem to be doing anything but encouraging that.

A and W both seemed to backtrack though. That's what I find confusing.

That's the Poly level.

On the Queer Level, especially when you're poly, you have to ensure that your relationship

Which relationship?

bypasses any heteronormative assumptions if you want society to offer you the couple's privilege that people in relationships often find validating. That's harder when you've got a cis male partner, too.

Is it? I don't think about couple's privilege with either of my partners, frankly. So I can't relate to your assertion.

If you're trying to let your same gender partner in a poly situation know that you have every intention of your relationship being "primary", you don't date a cis other gender partner who is planning marriage and kids with you.

Yeah, I address that seeming disconnect.

This is where I've always seen the heterosexual relationship become a life partnership that takes priority in the way I described.

All of this becomes less prominent as you age out of that sort of childbearing and rearing age and are less dependent on the escalator to help secure life milestones like (final) home ownership, or indeed kids.

My bf and Pixi's bf are both young (30s, early 40s) who are definitely of childrearing age, yet it's not a priority for them. I guess if it was, they wouldn't have chosen me or Pixi to seriously partner with/live with. Maybe W has decided he loves A so much, if she's not up for marriage and kids, that's fine with him. Maybe he thought he wanted marriage and kids because he's been conditioned to want that. Lots of people go that route because "that's just what you do," without considering that it really is NOT a requirement for happiness for many people.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

My bf and Pixi's bf are both young (30s, early 40s) who are definitely of childrearing age, yet it's not a priority for them. I guess if it was, they wouldn't have chosen me or Pixi to seriously partner with/live with. Maybe W has decided he loves A so much, if she's not up for marriage and kids, that's fine with him. Maybe he thought he wanted marriage and kids because he's been conditioned to want that. Lots of people go that route because "that's just what you do," without considering that it really is NOT a requirement for happiness for many people.

It's deeper than that, though. And it's probably because I know a situation which is kind of related that occurred but it's a little less "poly" and more about how the world will view the situation and what that will mean for everyday interactions.

I'm keeping it gender neutral on purpose.

Apple and Banana are cis same sex partners.

Cherry is a cis other gender platonic best friend of Apple.

Needless to say, Apple and Banana cannot conceive a biological child together, nor can either of them get pregnant (don't make gender assumptions here, but they just can't). Both Apple and Banana could conceive a child with Cherry.

There's lots of ways to get sperm and egg to a term baby.

Apple and Banana want a child. They need additonal people to assist in the process. Apple suggests Cherry to Banana. Banana has reservations. The route to fertility is a hard one, finding people to assist in the process isn't easy. Eventually Banana suggests they do ask Cherry.

Cherry is very willing to assist and alleviates Banana's concerns that Cherry will stick to being a Godparent like figure in the baby's life. They'll just assist. They'll not visit more often than they do now, or anything like that. Nothing will change.

However, over the course of the resulting pregnancy, Apple and Cherry started to want Cherry to be more involved and their position as a "biological" or "birth parent" to be a primary role in the child's life. They want Cherry's kids to know New Baby is their "birth sibling". They had this idea that they could simply explain to everyone that Apple and Banana are the legal parents and Cherry is just very much on the scene but not in an authoritative, parental sense. They assumed that they could overcome the default and Banana wouldn't feel pushed out by everyone assuming that the child is Cherry's and treating them as the parent.

Fast forward until the child is about 5 and in school, it's generally assumed that Cherry is an amicable ex of Apple and they planned a baby together as part of a life partnership. Banana is the step-parent who come along afterwards and therefore very much on the backseat.

Even the child pretty much sees their family as the same kind of blended families they see in their friend's homes where a breakdown of a relationship or a death has prompted the formation of a new family.

This is a source of ongoing anguish for Banana and it's why they much preferred someone who was distant, but Banana could only walk away when the other 2 started wanting something different and have no significant of the child's life. Banana knew society was heteronormative and as soon as Cherry wanted "in", Banana would no longer be seen on the same level as Apple or Cherry in the child's life.

This story is maybe why I am projecting a bit, but I think the OP has valid concerns and clarification is necessary.

 

[Magdlyn]

Yes, your story is also a perfectly valid scenario. If this really happened to some friends of yours, I'm sorry. It is too bad it didn't go according to plan. That's very sad for Banana! I'm sorry they are still in anguish and I hope over time they will heal and move on to a better life.

Of course, there is the famous example of how David Crosby provided sperm for Melissa Etheridge's partner's two pregnancies/children. (I don't think anyone knows if he delivered the sperm by PiV, or just provided it for artificial insemination.) He was the bio dad, but didn't take a fatherly role with those kids.

I agree it's trickier when the bisexual woman in question wants to have a kid with her male partner. The female partner's role and rights with the child are in a pretty grey area, in our culture. Whereas, in a situation where a woman is married to one guy, but gets pregnant by another guy, the married guy is the legal father to the kid! The other guy can just walk away. Of course, the mom can divorce her husband and be with, or marry, the bio-dad, but I guess the ex-husband will still be the legal father, unless he relinquishes his rights. Then the bio-dad would need to legally adopt his own kid, I suppose!

 

[iga97]

It's deeper than that, though. And it's probably because I know a situation which is kind of related that occurred but it's a little less "poly" and more about how the world will view the situation and what that will mean for everyday interactions.

I'm keeping it gender neutral on purpose.

Apple and Banana are cis same sex partners.

Cherry is a cis other gender platonic best friend of Apple.

Needless to say, Apple and Banana cannot conceive a biological child together, nor can either of them get pregnant (don't make gender assumptions here, but they just can't). Both Apple and Banana could conceive a child with Cherry.

There's lots of ways to get sperm and egg to a term baby.

Apple and Banana want a child. They need additonal people to assist in the process. Apple suggests Cherry to Banana. Banana has reservations. The route to fertility is a hard one, finding people to assist in the process isn't easy. Eventually Banana suggests they do ask Cherry.

Cherry is very willing to assist and alleviates Banana's concerns that Cherry will stick to being a Godparent like figure in the baby's life. They'll just assist. They'll not visit more often than they do now, or anything like that. Nothing will change.

However, over the course of the resulting pregnancy, Apple and Cherry started to want Cherry to be more involved and their position as a "biological" or "birth parent" to be a primary role in the child's life. They want Cherry's kids to know New Baby is their "birth sibling". They had this idea that they could simply explain to everyone that Apple and Banana are the legal parents and Cherry is just very much on the scene but not in an authoritative, parental sense. They assumed that they could overcome the default and Banana wouldn't feel pushed out by everyone assuming that the child is Cherry's and treating them as the parent.

Fast forward until the child is about 5 and in school, it's generally assumed that Cherry is an amicable ex of Apple and they planned a baby together as part of a life partnership. Banana is the step-parent who come along afterwards and therefore very much on the backseat.

Even the child pretty much sees their family as the same kind of blended families they see in their friend's homes where a breakdown of a relationship or a death has prompted the formation of a new family.

This is a source of ongoing anguish for Banana and it's why they much preferred someone who was distant, but Banana could only walk away when the other 2 started wanting something different and have no significant of the child's life. Banana knew society was heteronormative and as soon as Cherry wanted "in", Banana would no longer be seen on the same level as Apple or Cherry in the child's life.

This story is maybe why I am projecting a bit, but I think the OP has valid concerns and clarification is necessary.

Exactly. Me and A can't conceive a child because we are two women. My girlfriend would like to give birth and for W to be the father. I'm afraid they will exclude me when the baby is born. I don't want W to be the biological father. Besides, you can't have three parents in your documents, and W said that if he were to become a father, he wanted to be a formal parent, and he wouldn't give up paternity so that I could adopt HIS child. If the child could formally have two mothers and one father, then ok, but it does not change the fact that I would be afraid of exclusion. They will create a happy family and I will be left alone. My dream will come true for someone else.
My girlfriend says she would never leave me but how can I be sure?

 

[GalaGirl]

Me and A can't conceive a child because we are two women.

Not between you. If you wanted to go the sperm donor route, you could do your family planning that way.

My girlfriend would like to give birth and for W to be the father.

Well, if she wants that, it's her body and her pregnancy.

I'm afraid they will exclude me when the baby is born.

Fair. Because you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Step parents? Even if you married her? You don't get a leg to stand on if you don't also adopt the stepchild. Because the coparent has to waive their rights for them to adopt. And W won't waive them.

I am kind to all children but nope. I'm not gonna get super tight or help raise a child that is not mine. Not when the custodial parents could just whisk them away on a whim.

I don't want W to be the biological father.

I could see that.

Besides, you can't have three parents in your documents, and W said that if he were to become a father, he wanted to be a formal parent, and he wouldn't give up paternity so that I could adopt HIS child. If the child could formally have two mothers and one father, then ok, but it does not change the fact that I would be afraid of exclusion. They will create a happy family and I will be left alone. My dream will come true for someone else.

So what's her want? To have a bio kid with W?

And then a kid with you by sperm donor? Which one of you would carry the baby in that case?

How's W feel about the children being maybe half-siblings/maybe not depending on whether she carries the baby or you do?

Is that what YOU want? This kind of blended family?

My girlfriend says she would never leave me but how can I be sure?

I kinda think that is the wrong question.

Family planning seems like a big deal to you.

Is THIS the kind of family you envisioned having for yourself?

If not? Maybe this GF is not compatible for what you seek?

So then the question becomes...

• Do you still want her to be your GF, but you create a family with another partner more in alignment to what you seek?
• Or you break up with her and find a partner who is more in alignment to what you seek?

Galagirl

 

[iga97]

Rectification.
I'm girl from Poland, my English may not be the best, I apologize for that.
In Poland we don't talk about polyamory. It's a taboo topic. Same as homosexuality.
My fears are justified because it is easier for heterosexual couples to live here. That's why I'm afraid that A will leave me for W.
I feel sad when I see that my girlfriend and W can walk freely down the street hand in hand, without anyone pointing fingers at them.
I feel sad when I see that my girlfriend can feel safe with W. Because no one will attack them on the street.
Heterosexual couples in Poland are privileged.
I have already had several failed relationships in which the woman left me for a man because it is safer and easier to live in Poland.
Besides, W is a cisgender man and he doesn't understand how difficult it is for two women to be together in this country.
It hurts when they can go on a normal date and no one discriminates against them in a hotel, restaurant, etc.
I have the impression that my girlfriend has finally calmed down and felt normal and that she will no longer want to return to a homosexual relationship.
Maybe my girlfriend will come to the conclusion that she loves me but wants a quiet life, doesn't want to hide, fight every day, and only a heterosexual relationship can give her that.

 

[GalaGirl]

Your English is fine.

I understand not everyone who is LGBT+ is safe in all places of the world.

I see it hurts.

But it doesn't really change the question.

What kind of family did YOU want to have? Was this it?

Is (what your GF wants for her family planning) and (what you want to have for your family planning) compatible and in alignment? Or not really?

I get it's hard to think about. But you might have to think about it along with your long term well being.

Playing second fiddle to GF and W's family or being like "GF's dirty secret" -- that's not a great way to live. ON TOP of the difficulties of being LGBT+ in Poland.

I can totally understand why you are worried about it all. I would be in these shoes.

Galagirl

 

[Magdlyn]

Rectification.
I'm girl from Poland, my English may not be the best, I apologize for that.
In Poland we don't talk about polyamory. It's a taboo topic. Same as homosexuality.
My fears are justified because it is easier for heterosexual couples to live here. That's why I'm afraid that A will leave me for W.
I feel sad when I see that my girlfriend and W can walk freely down the street hand in hand, without anyone pointing fingers at them.
I feel sad when I see that my girlfriend can feel safe with W. Because no one will attack them on the street.
Heterosexual couples in Poland are privileged.
I have already had several failed relationships in which the woman left me for a man because it is safer and easier to live in Poland.
Besides, W is a cisgender man and he doesn't understand how difficult it is for two women to be together in this country.
It hurts when they can go on a normal date and no one discriminates against them in a hotel, restaurant, etc.
I have the impression that my girlfriend has finally calmed down and felt normal and that she will no longer want to return to a homosexual relationship.
Maybe my girlfriend will come to the conclusion that she loves me but wants a quiet life, doesn't want to hide, fight every day, and only a heterosexual relationship can give her that.

I am so sorry things are so restrictive and discriminatory in Poland. Is this from the influence of the Catholic Church? I hope things can change as the younger generations probably want and need them to do!

The US sucks in many ways, but at least same sex marriage is legal and cannabis has been decriminalized/made legal, after a ton of hard work by progressives. We definitely still have major issues with racism, poverty, food insecurity, abortion rights, health care in general, etc., etc.

 

[Bobbi]

cannabis has been decriminalized/made legal

To clarify. It has not been legalized, in the US. Certain states have done this but it is still a federal crime. Anyone traveling here should check the state you are visiting and NEVER travel in possession.

 

[Magdlyn]

To clarify. It has not been legalized, in the US. Certain states have done this but it is still a federal crime. Anyone traveling here should check the state you are visiting and NEVER travel in possession.

Right. I live in one of the state where recreational cannabis is legal. And even where it isn't legal, at this point, I am pretty sure all you get is ignored, or at most a "slap on the wrist:" a small fine, for possession for personal use. I don't know if medical cannabis is fine in all 50 states, but I am not a politico.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

 

[Dagferi]

Right. I live in one of the state where recreational cannabis is legal. And even where it isn't legal, at this point, I am pretty sure all you get is ignored, or at most a "slap on the wrist:" a small fine, for possession for personal use. I don't know if medical cannabis is fine in all 50 states, but I am not a politico.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

Right. I live in one of the state where recreational cannabis is legal. And even where it isn't legal, at this point, I am pretty sure all you get is ignored, or at most a "slap on the wrist:" a small fine, for possession for personal use. I don't know if medical cannabis is fine in all 50 states, but I am not a politico.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

If I were to use cannabis, legal in my state, or not, because it is federally illegal, I would lose my professional licenses as a veterinary technician and insurance claims adjuster. (I am licensed in all the states that require an insurance adjuster to be licensed.)