Nesting partner: uptick in use vs primary and or non hierarchical poly

[dingedheart]

Because google knows everything what I’ve commented on here or emailed various friends my YouTube page has a great variety of videos to watch and recently there were some on a poly mono couple converting a 17 yr marriage which I guess happened a few yrs back at this point( google / YouTube was a little slow making the connection ). They’ve put out a good number of short videos on lots of the hot topics of transitioning a mono marriage into a poly dynamic… I watched a few minutes of 4 or 6 of them. In 1 or 2 she explained the new structure and nesting partner because she disliked “ primary “ partner …and described how she has adopted a relationship anarchy / non hierarchical stance to romantic relationships and then in another video describe the disappointment dating app frog kissing.

The big refrain is words matter and I trying to understand the logic or value of wanting that label attached to you if you’re a married spouse transitioning from a long term mono marriage ? By openly stating this are you trying to front load demotion and displacement to completely recalibrate expectations using RA principles…rules?…there are no rules. Hypothetical question if you’re in this guys situation and you’re technically/ legally her husband and you get introduced as her nesting partner or anchor partner or wuzband is that a feel good moment no matter how true it might be ? Especially if it’s something you settled/ compromised for.

Another intentional poly couple using the same nesting labeling very early in their relationship opened and decided want a mono dynamic. They didn’t like ridgid structure of society norms…good for them right …and yet they married 3 yrs later …still poly and I guess just a bit more nested. To me this is upside down too. If you want to buck society and have this non hierarchical dynamic why the hell would you get married ? Doesn’t that at the very minimum denote some hierarchy.

IS using nesting partner more descriptive or intentionally vague to invite a greater conversation and spell out meaning? Or does it sound cute, light, fun ?

To me I think anchor partner is pretty descriptive implies a healthy does of RA.

Is this the latest trend or I should say how late am I to seeing that trend ?

 

[kdt26417]

In my V, Brother-Husband is still known to the world at large as Snowbunny's husband, I am adopted family but otherwise I might as well be known as a nesting partner. So there is a hierarchy, in the words we broadcast. The idea that all three of us are primary partners is mostly known only to the three of us. Snowbunny sees both of us men as husbands, but that isn't how we are presented to the world. I've had my own struggles in adjusting to that reality, but in the meantime, I was never really demoted as I started out as just a friend. Brother-Husband was demoted in private, but I think his main concern is his public image, note however that he isn't the world's most thorough communicator.

 

[MeeraReed]

This is an interesting topic because relationship anarchy has always resonated with me. But it's not just a synonym for non-hierarchical poly...it includes a broader approach to relationships that doesn't automatically privilege romantic or sexual relationships, while emphasizing personal freedom and autonomy in relationships.

It's not that there are no rules, but that the normal rules and expectations of relationships are not automatic. Relationship anarchists might have, for example, platonic domestic/nesting partners, queerplatonic or asexual relationships, close friendships with exes, long-term casual sex partnerships, and the freedom to form kink play relationships, as well as more "traditional" poly relationships.

Some years ago, a relationship anarchy Facebook group I was in had a discussion about whether couples who get legally married can still claim to be practicing relationship anarchy. It was prompted by the fact that relationship anarchy, along with non-hierarchical poly, had become trendy, to the point that many newly-open formerly-mono married couples were claiming to be "non-hierarchical" or "RA" despite not appearing to practice anything other than very hierarchical poly.

Then there was also a discussion about whether monogamous couples can also use the RA label.

The consensus was...well, there wasn't a consensus, but generally everyone had to admit that RA is about freedom so you can say you are whatever you want. But that both being legally married and also being monogamous are generally not want is meant by "relationship anarchy," and it dilutes the label if you can't use it to find a specific subset of people/practices.

Generally, I would assume a relationship anarchist getting legally married was marrying their queerplatonic best friend for health insurance. I would be very skeptical of a "traditional" married couple who claimed the RA label, unless they can give me specific examples of what it means for them.

As for "nesting partner," also an interesting topic. I don't think it was coined to be a replacement term for one's legal spouse. I would be very annoyed if I met a prospective poly partner whose "nesting partner" turned out to be their long-term married spouse. If you're legally married, I want to know that up-front.

Generally, I think of "nesting partner" as someone you live with romantically but are not married to (since then they would just be your "spouse"). An exception would be if you and your legal spouse live separately, and you have a different poly nesting partner that you share a home with.

However, most poly people don't introduce people in person as their "nesting partner." It's more a term used on forums or dating profiles to describe someone's situation, rather than to describe someone in real life/in person. Like, normally, people would just say, "This is my partner X. We live together and have 2 dogs."

I do find "nesting partner" to be a useful term for navigating poly relationships. I get how it helps with creating non-hierarchical relationships, to move away from the term "primary partner" and open the possibility of having other serious relationships where you don't live together. Although I think having more than one "primary partner" is okay as a label too.

I find "anchor partner" to be more vague, or more broad. To me it doesn't automatically mean that you live with them, but rather that the relationship is long-term and stable and you spend a lot of time together. As opposed to a "comet partner" that visits once a year, or short-term relationships that don't become established partnerships.

Overall, I have been surprised to learn how many people doing ANY type of non-monogamy are legally married. I knew from a young age that I never wanted to marry...it was always a part of my approach to ENM or solo poly or relationship anarchy or whatever...but it turns out most people (in the US, at least) seem to be married.

 

[Evie]

IS using nesting partner more descriptive or intentionally vague to invite a greater conversation and spell out meaning? Or does it sound cute, light, fun ?

To me I think anchor partner is pretty descriptive implies a healthy [dose] of RA.

Is this the latest trend or I should say how late am I to seeing that trend ?

I'm about to start nesting again with my husband. We'll have to learn to live together again after a couple of years apart (it was only that long because of so many delays in trying to get our house ready for the market) but in my ideal world things would look different to even that. He will be a nesting partner (practical description), a husband (legal description) and, I suppose, an anchor partner (emotional description?) although it will take us some time to become emotionally connected again the same way we were.

Mono-normativity would generally expect 'husband' to encompass all things, but as a polyamorous person, I definitely draw the distinction these days, but that's largely because of the amount of time we've spent long distance over the years. Part of me expects there will be at least one more stint of long distance before we hit retirement and gravitate to somewhere more permanently.

Until Puck gets a job here, we won't be sure precisely what things will look like regarding him. He's definitely an anchor partner if I attribute the emotional connection with that word. I don't know quite what else to use. If he gets that job, his wife will most likely also join him here, so they will be nesting partners like they are in the States. Puck and I will have to learn how to work around us both having nesting partners and not a hell of a lot of disposable income while things are getting established. We'd also love to be nesting partners (a 3-4-4-3 set up like Dagfari sounds good) but financially it's probably just not doable so we'll have to figure something else out.

More generally, RA may use anchor partner, although it would tend to imply a potential hierarchy. Perhaps the anchor partner would be like someone's 'in case of emergency' person, or the person you'd call if you needed serious emotional support at short notice, or even the person you may take to a family gathering.

Personally, I wouldn't actually use the term 'anchor' partner (other than in this post) when describing a partner. Ball and chain on the other hand... (j/k).

 

[dingedheart]

In my V, Brother-Husband is still known to the world at large as Snowbunny's husband, I am adopted family but otherwise I might as well be known as a nesting partner. So there is a hierarchy, in the words we broadcast. The idea that all three of us are primary partners is mostly known only to the three of us. Snowbunny sees both of us men as husbands, but that isn't how we are presented to the world. I've had my own struggles in adjusting to that reality, but in the meantime, I was never really demoted as I started out as just a friend. Brother-Husband was demoted in private, but I think his main concern is his public image, note however that he isn't the world's most thorough communicator.

So the reason you’re in the closet is in deference / consideration to brother husbands public image ?

 

[dingedheart]

This is an interesting topic because relationship anarchy has always resonated with me. But it's not just a synonym for non-hierarchical poly...it includes a broader approach to relationships that doesn't automatically privilege romantic or sexual relationships, while emphasizing personal freedom and autonomy in relationships.

Yes all those I’ve known practicing RA took that beyond “ emphasis “ …more like radical freedom and autonomy. Remember Marcus ?

It's not that there are no rules, but that the normal rules and expectations of relationships are not automatic. Relationship anarchists might have, for example, platonic domestic/nesting partners, queerplatonic or asexual relationships, close friendships with exes, long-term casual sex partnerships, and the freedom to form kink play relationships, as well as more "traditional" poly relationships.

Some years ago, a relationship anarchy Facebook group I was in had a discussion about whether couples who get legally married can still claim to be practicing relationship anarchy. It was prompted by the fact that relationship anarchy, along with non-hierarchical poly, had become trendy, to the point that many newly-open formerly-mono married couples were claiming to be "non-hierarchical" or "RA" despite not appearing to practice anything other than very hierarchical poly.

My exact thought in regards to the mono poly couple in the video I saw.

Then there was also a discussion about whether monogamous couples can also use the RA label.

I guess they have the right to use the label under the principle of RA but those getting involved will quickly be disappointed by the lack of honesty.

The consensus was...well, there wasn't a consensus, but generally everyone had to admit that RA is about freedom so you can say you are whatever you want. But that both being legally married and also being monogamous are generally not want is meant by "relationship anarchy," and it dilutes the label if you can't use it to find a specific subset of people/practices.

Generally, I would assume a relationship anarchist getting legally married was marrying their queerplatonic best friend for health insurance. I would be very skeptical of a "traditional" married couple who claimed the RA label, unless they can give me specific examples of what it means for them.

ON THE flip side we have RA / non hierarchical poly members who’s divorced to remove the appearance of hierarchy.

As for "nesting partner," also an interesting topic.

Do you see this as trend?

I don't think it was coined to be a replacement term for one's legal spouse. I would be very annoyed if I met a prospective poly partner whose "nesting partner" turned out to be their long-term married spouse. If you're legally married, I want to know that up-front.

I guess I wasn’t thinking it was used as an interchangeable replacement but more as a deliberate descriptor of a non hierarchical structure.

Generally, I think of "nesting partner" as someone you live with romantically but are not married to (since then they would just be your "spouse"). An exception would be if you and your legal spouse live separately, and you have a different poly nesting partner that you share a home with.

I never thought of that possibility. Yeah that would work really well too.

However, most poly people don't introduce people in person as their "nesting partner." It's more a term used on forums or dating profiles to describe someone's situation, rather than to describe someone in real life/in person. Like, normally, people would just say, "This is my partner X. We live together and have 2 dogs."

Yes ….And theres a million different circumstances in which an introduction/ first time meeting someone could occur. A scheduled sit down is way different than bumping into someone on the street.

I do find "nesting partner" to be a useful term for navigating poly relationships. I get how it helps with creating non-hierarchical relationships, to move away from the term "primary partner" and open the possibility of having other serious relationships where you don't live together. Although I think having more than one "primary partner" is okay as a label too.

I think human nature drives people to want to be primary partners but why would someone aspire to be the nesting partner or the anchor partner. It seems driven by circumstance or the people you’ve attached to.

I find "anchor partner" to be more vague, or more broad. To me it doesn't automatically mean that you live with them, but rather that the relationship is long-term and stable and you spend a lot of time together. As opposed to a "comet partner" that visits once a year, or short-term relationships that don't become established partnerships.

I agree. OR fills the space between comets

Overall, I have been surprised to learn how many people doing ANY type of non-monogamy are legally married. I knew from a young age that I never wanted to marry...it was always a part of my approach to ENM or solo poly or relationship anarchy or whatever...but it turns out most people (in the US, at least) seem to be married.

And this could be the reason behind this new trend …if I’m not the only one seeing this.

 

[dingedheart]

I'm about to start nesting again with my husband. We'll have to learn to live together again after a couple of years apart (it was only that long because of so many delays in trying to get our house ready for the market) but in my ideal world things would look different to even that. He will be a nesting partner (practical description), a husband (legal description) and, I suppose, an anchor partner (emotional description?) although it will take us some time to become emotionally connected again the same way we were.

Ok, but even with all the historical nuance or situational nuance, how do you/would you introduce him in a poly group setting? Or does it float depending on the audience?

Mono-normativity would generally expect 'husband' to encompass all things, but as a polyamorous person, I definitely draw the distinction these days, but that's largely because of the amount of time we've spent long distance over the years. Part of me expects there will be at least one more stint of long distance before we hit retirement and gravitate to somewhere more permanently.

So you're saying husband or wife would be a misleading label or descriptor in your case, if you’re trying to deliberately describe the status or nature of the relationship?

Until Puck gets a job here, we won't be sure precisely what things will look like regarding him. He's definitely an anchor partner if I attribute the emotional connection with that word. I don't know quite what else to use. If he gets that job, his wife will most likely also join him here, so they will be nesting partners like they are in the States. Puck and I will have to learn how to work around us both having nesting partners and not a hell of a lot of disposable income while things are getting established. We'd also love to be nesting partners (a 3-4-4-3 set up like Dagfari sounds good) but financially it's probably just not doable so we'll have to figure something else out.

Does his wife date/have other partners? Not doable because you’d need a 3 residence? Because his wife would be in tow? Is Adam against nesting 3-4 with Puck ? Or is this cramping your style(s) (meaning you and Puck)?

More generally, RA may use anchor partner, although it would tend to imply a potential hierarchy. Perhaps the anchor partner would be like someone's 'in case of emergency' person, or the person you'd call if you needed serious emotional support at short notice, or even the person you may take to a family gathering.

Yes, that makes sense to me. RA people would find that attractive/utilitarian. On the other hand, tethered to someone seems 180 degrees to complete freedom.

Personally, I wouldn't actually use the term 'anchor' partner (other than in this post) when describing a partner. Ball and chain on the other hand... (j/k).

Ha. BALL and chain… Every time I see it written, that’s that’s how I see it. I don’t think I want to be the rock someone feels chained to.

 

[kdt26417]

Re: "So the reason you're in the closet is in deference/consideration to Brother-Husband's public image?" ... That's one of the reasons. Actually Snowbunny is concerned about her public image too. That in general plus, neither of them want to risk disownership by their family members, or risk losing their jobs.

 

[MeeraReed]

Yes, all those I’ve known practicing RA took that beyond “emphasis“ … more like radical freedom and autonomy. Remember Marcus?

Yes, I used to enjoy Marcus' voice here.

Do you see this as a trend?

I do think the use of "nesting partner" is a trend and is on the rise. But I don't see it as a bad thing. I think it fills the need for poly people to describe multiple relationships, one of which may be their live-in partner.

Not sure why it can't just be "live-in partner," though. "Nesting" is very cutesy and makes it seem like living together is all about creating a cozy winter nest and not about daily chores, bills, property ownership, mortgage, etc.

I think human nature drives people to want to be primary partners. But why would someone aspire to be the nesting partner or the anchor partner?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you see "nesting partner" and "anchor partner" as demeaning terms, demotions from primary partner/spouse?

Plenty of people aspire to be someone's nesting partner or to have a nesting partner. It just means living together and not necessarily being legally married.

And this could be the reason behind this new trend… if I’m not the only one seeing this.

Do you mean that the trend is specifically that married poly couples are calling themselves "nesting partners" rather than admitting that they are legal spouses?

 

[dingedheart]

Re: "So the reason you're in the closet is in deference/consideration to Brother-Husband's public image?" ... That's one of the reasons. Actually Snowbunny is concerned about her public image too. That in general plus, neither of them want to risk disownership by their family members, or risk losing their jobs.

What about you? Would you prefer to be out and to be acknowledged as brother husband/second husband/SO?

 

[dingedheart]

Yes, I used to enjoy Marcus' voice here.

Yes, we definitely got the RA perspective.

I do think the use of "nesting partner" is a trend and is on the rise. But I don't see it as a bad thing. I think it fills the need for poly people to describe multiple relationships, one of which may be their live-in partner.

Good point. It’s a new tool in the labeling toolbox and people are going to pick it up and apply it however they want. I think people who establish their relationship from the start or early as ENM or poly, with the intention of not having a so-called primary, and they decide to cohabitate, that’s way different than someone converting a 20 yr mono marriage with 3 kids. Side by side, they might practically be the same. I’d just be very skeptical of the latter because of the legal and historical aspects of that.

Not sure why it can't just be "live-in partner," though. "Nesting" is very cutesy and makes it seem like living together is all about creating a cozy winter nest and not about daily chores, bills, property ownership, mortgage, etc.

Another good point. I agree. Sometime inside that trench I’m betting it doesn’t feel cutesy.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you see "nesting partner" and "anchor partner" as demeaning terms, demotions from primary partner/spouse?

I was just thinking of people who were poly bombed after ( ) yrs of marriage. The use of husband or wife automatically spells hierarchy/privilege/primary, so those are labels help communicate the state of the playing field. I think it’s pretty much objective fact if you’re in a mono marriage for 20 yrs and your spouse drops the poly bomb on you, it’s a demotion. You were primary and now you’re not. And then to further it with a declaration of non-hierarchical poly pretty much cements that in, don’t you think? Lots of change there, both mentally and practically.

Plenty of people aspire to be someone's nesting partner or to have a nesting partner. It just means living together and not necessarily being legally married.

Would that be considered part of or different from the relationship escalator? How many non-married nesting partners eventually want to marry? Is that a thing?

Do you mean that the trend is specifically that married poly couples are calling themselves "nesting partners" rather than admitting that they are legal spouses?

Yes and no. The ones in the media promoting a book or podcast use the term and sort of back fill with the fact they have a legal spouse. I think it was phrased, "I consider my husband (name) to be my nesting partner," because she doesn’t believe in primary or secondary partners. So she wasn’t hiding the fact she’s legally married. She was using the term to delineate away from primary.

 

[Tinwen]

I think it was phased, "I consider my husband (name) to be my nesting partner," because she doesn’t believe in primary or secondary partners. So she wasn’t hiding the fact she’s legally married. She was using the term to delineate away from primary.

That's well possible. Maybe he is not primary to her in terms of feeling (and/or sex) any more. That happens.

The "demotion" or estrangement in some marriages happens before they open up - they are in that stage of relationship where it's more roommates and coparents.

I'm not saying it isn't weird to call your husband "nesting partner." I think in most cases it is. On the other hand, relationships are all so different... we really don't know the history. Maybe they've accepted the change and they ARE past grieving the monogamous/primary status.

 

[kdt26417]

Re: "What about you, would you prefer to be out and to be acknowledged as brother-husband/second husband/SO?" ... if it was just up to me, if I were the only one being affected, my personal preference would be to be out as poly. Let's just say I'd like to know who my true friends really are.

 

[Evie]

Ok, but even with all the historical nuance or situational nuance, how do you/would you introduce him in a poly group setting? Or does it float depending on the audience?

It floats - to most people, 'husband' - but then caveat that with us living apart for the last two years (that's changing as of next Monday).

So you're saying husband or wife would be a misleading label or descriptor in your case, if you’re trying to deliberately describe the status or nature of the relationship?

If you have the mono-normative expectations of what husband and wife involve, yes, they would be misleading. Even without polyamory, we're quite non-traditional.

Does his wife date/have other partners? Not doable because you’d need a 3 residence? Because his wife would be in tow? Is Adam against nesting 3-4 with Puck ? Or is this cramping your style(s) (meaning you and Puck)?

Yes, Renee has another long term bf whom she usually goes and stays with once a week - in their home State. But if she also chooses to come here, to my country, that will obviously end. She may meet someone else here and we'll evolve new routines of who is hosting where and when.

Not doable because ideally we'd want three houses between four people - one for Puck and Renee, one for Adam and me, and one for Puck and me. Financially, that's not on the cards.

None of us would want to live together as a whole polycule, all for slightly different reasons that I won't go into here.

Yes, that makes sense to me. RA people would find that attractive/utilitarian. On the other hand, tethered to someone seems 180 degrees to complete freedom.

Ha. BALL and chain… Every time I see it written, that’s that’s how I see it. I don’t think I want to be the rock someone feels chained to.