New and seeking advice

Quads (and N's) aren't too rare; any larger a group than that and yes, any number of people living together can happen, but it doesn't happen very often. Usually the smaller number of people is what you see in a poly relationship.
 
Does anything larger than a triad ever happen? Like, I don't know, six people living together?
Probably, but no current members spring to mind as cohabiting quads, pents or more.
 
Does anything larger than a triad ever happen? Like, I don't know, six people living together?
I can imagine it has. I'm sure people have tried. If you mean six people where everyone is in every possible relationship - all dyads, all triads, all quads, ... - I can't imagine a relationship structure this complex would be sustainable. But a kitchen table polycule of small star/V dyads - maybe.

You are getting way ahead of yourself.
 
I can imagine it has. I'm sure people have tried. If you mean six people where everyone is in every possible relationship - all dyads, all triads, all quads, ... - I can't imagine a relationship structure this complex would be sustainable. But a kitchen table polycule of small star/V dyads - maybe.

You are getting way ahead of yourself.
As soon as an ontology of partnerships was added it made my inner philosopher go "what exists? what is possible and impossible in this world?"
 
We have agreed to maybe make it so when we're together we're not with another via texting or other exchanges.
I thought I'd address this.

When you live together, this isn't really practical since you'll have so much time you are together.

How about you consider that when you're together on a deliberate date day or night, you don't text etc. other partners.
 
I thought I'd address this.

When you live together, this isn't really practical since you'll have so much time you are together.

How about you consider that when you're together on a deliberate date day or night, you don't text etc. other partners.
I have contemplated this... I think it's gotta be organic. Like, if I am studying and she's in bed why can't she text? Why not when in the washroom? But maybe not if we're cuddling up with dinner and a show.
 
Does anything larger than a triad ever happen? Like, I don't know, six people living together?
"Group marriage" and "harem" may be your next search terms. The only example of a large group like that which I remember reading about in the forums turned out to be a hoax - someone was trying to play off their fantasy as their actual day to day life. Maybe there were two of those in recent years? Quads form readily, especially among swingers (who may then identify as polyamorous), but tend not to last many years.

Potential partners should eventually know that (as you say) your life would be incomplete without kids. Whether they have kids or not, that should be relevant information for them.

I think you specified that you're exploring non-monogamy so that your wife can explore her interest in women. If she became interested in other men, would that be outside the agreements you've negotiated?

Have you discussed safer sex practices and STD testing? Will you two be tested for STDs and provide that information to potential partners?

As for ending the relationship I don't really think it is an option for either of us.
It may feel like you have this all figured out, but remember that relationships end for far less obvious reasons than inviting other people in and having unexpected things happen. Your monogamous relationship is ending. There will be new pressures, as there are new experiences and new personalities involved. And you won't always see the drama coming, although having a good idea of your own (individual) boundaries and a radar for red flags will help.

I think ultimately we would prefer to cultivate relationships which integrate into our primary.
I'm not familiar with this terminology. Are you saying you eventually want the additional partner(s) to live with you two? To be exclusive to you and/or your wife? Just to get along well?
 
Is it generally seen as a bad thing for a couple to impose joint rules for another person? I personally can see how it would be intimidating, like ganging up on someone.

Everyone decides that for themselves. I would say as long as you are clearly communicating the relationship available to the new person you can have whatever arrangement everyone agrees on.

I would classify what you are describing as "strict hierarchy", in that you are the Primary Couple, and everyone associated with either of you is a Secondary Partner. The needs and interests of the Secondary Partner are respected so long as everyone in the Primary Couple find the change to be reasonable. Any effort or challenge that is presented by the Secondary Partner that is not fully endorsed by both members of the Primary Couple, the Secondary Partner doesn't get what they want.

To illustrate:

Partner A says "hey, I want to join a pottery club with you, it'll meet on every Thursday night at 8pm. It sounds really exciting and I think it would be cool if you and I shared that with each other. It would kind of be our thing"​
You go to Wife and ask her if it's cool if you do this but Wife says "I am uncomfortable with that, it brings me emotional distress to think that you and Partner A have "a thing" together. It devalues my association with you and it makes me feel insecure".​
In a strict hierarchy, you would need to negotiate it down until Wife gives the green-light, or you would need to tell Partner A that it won't be allowed because it would interfere with the sanctity of the Primary Couple.​

While this might seem like a trivial example, you can substitute anything in place of the "pottery club" and you still have a strict hierarchy. It is a quality that puts Secondary Partners in a fundamentally less valuable position, and subject to the rules and whim of the Primary Couple.

For me, oh hell no. It is a firm boundary that no one has the right to tell me how/when/why I associate with other people. I am the sole decider of what I do with my time and energy, and any effort to control, either directly or indirectly through a repressive policy, will be met with quick correction. Further, anyone who takes part in a strict hierarchy is not a viable partner for me because I just can't respect anyone who responds to me with "I don't know, let me check to see if I'm allowed to do that"...
 
I'm with Marcus. I will point out that negotiating child care, vehicle/home use, or other shared responsibilities with another partner isn't the same as permission/prohibition. My nesting partner has to be consulted on, or at the very least pointed to, calendar additions. My co-parents need confirmation of "on duty," "off duty." and "hand-off" times.

There are *many* couples who endorse strict hierarchy. I don't know how successful they are in keeping to that ideal. I certainly would counsel anyone to reconsider being subject to other people's rules for them, that aren't the same for everyone (i.e., mutual agreements) and a good fit for the individual.
 
Poly networks or polywebs can happen, but usually not all living together.

Is it generally seen as a bad thing for a couple to impose joint rules for another person? I personally can see how it would be intimidating, like ganging up on someone. I think insofar as I see other people being involved with both of us I would want there not to be a hierarchy of us and them, but if another person is added it becomes a new us. I don't like the idea of imposing rules on a third person that would make being part of this relationship as like walking on eggshells.

Are you able to see the contradiction? Intimidating, but do it anyway? It becomes a "new us"... but they are expected to fit into the "old us" agreements they never had a say in?

First you say this is gonna be primary-secondary, so there's rules already the new people are just expected to comply with.
  • The spouse always comes first, no matter what.
  • New relationships are not to compete with the primary one.
  • If the spouse has emotional distress, rational or not, you will go attend to them first. (Even if it means breaking a date with secondary or standing them up?)
  • Wife doesn't want you sharing sex with new partners in the home to preserve its sanctity. (Isn't it your home too? Will this cause YOU distress?)
  • The new people all have to fit in with this plan.
  • Never really thought about things from the other person's shoes.
But then you also don't want them walking on eggshells.

Where are these people? And if they ARE up for this set up... how healthy are they really? Cuz you also want to avoid drama.

Kind of a tall order, right? Are you able to see that?

When it comes to the living situation we live in a small apartment. I think she just wants to preserve a certain sanctity for our place. But there would be no barrier if one of us was with a partner while the other is home and this might be a motive for her? For myself I don't require this rule, I see it as easier to bring someone home and fine to change the sheets. But if it is important for her I am fine with it without question.

I do not understand that sentence. Could you please be willing to clarify? What motive?

You said...

A second partner living with us will not be treated like they're on the lower class or outside. Their emotional needs will matter to me, albeit hopefully this is reciprocal.

But then your wife doesn't want you sharing sex with other partners in the flat because she wants to preserve its sanctity. Could that be perceived as lower class/second citizen/outside treatment?

What magic thing happens at living together where that kind of treatment would stop? (Not that everyone wants to live together.)

Just... Why can't this be present during dating?

Maybe before you open you and wife move to a 2 bedroom flat so she can have sanctity of HER bedroom, and you get to have your bedroom and share common areas?

Or is the set up such that it NEVER gets to living together because the system is designed to fail and run these new partners of yours off before that ever happens? The "getting too serious" thing?

Have you considered that some spouses make all these conditions which then becomes "de facto Closed?"

Like they talk a good game about being into Open relationships, but not really.

Maybe they want just Open for them but not the spouse.

They don't all do it on purpose or consciously either... they are just newbies making a mess. Like cannot see the forest for the trees.

As for ending the relationship I don't really think it is an option for either of us

You never talked about what the dealbreakers are? Maybe before you change the relationship model, you might consider talking that out. Because if/when the shit hits the fan, that's not the time to start to figure out the "part ways decently" plan. Emotions usually are running high.

Poly has a way of shining a light on many things. From the perspective of the new person? It sucks to get caught in underprepared married people mess and come out being the collateral damage while the marriage implodes or explodes.

I'm reminded of a really sad break up one. They were trying to triad while preserving a primary-secondary thing. Didn't do the work of detangling and came at it very CoupleBlob.

I also don't get the vibe that you and wife are on the same page.
  • She wants to explore sex with other women.
  • You want to explore emotional connections.
Open/poly can work out, if people are clear on expectations. But IS it clear?

If she's coming at it from a casual sex POV, is she monoamorous and polysexual? And would have problems if you develop deep emotional connections with someone else because she wants to be the ONLY one you share that with? Have you talked that out?

Since you haven't been thinking from the other person's shoes... you might consider doing so.

Say you find another poly newbie who is up for this primary-secondary thing you propose. (I think experienced poly people would look at this set up and go "Nope!" and walk away.)

What happens over time?

Your secondary (let's call them Blue) may find it tiresome to always host sex time/sleepovers because they have to help preserve the "sanctity" of your wife's home while also being relegated to secondary status. Also, hotels cost money. And doing it in cars is free, but oy. We all get older.

What about the sanctity of the relationship with Blue? How would that FEEL to Blue being relegated to the shadows? Where in words you say you love and care for them, but in actions it feels like "dirty secret" to them.

You may benefit from reading this.

http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef/poly/Labriola/open.html

Particularly this part. Red is mine.

Pros and Cons of the Primary/Secondary Model​

This model is popular because it is the model most similar to traditional marriage and does not threaten the primacy of the couple. For most married or co-habitating couples, it is not such a stretch to have a few outside relationships as long as they know that the primary commitment is to the marriage. They can still be married, have children, live together, be socially acceptable, and "live a normal life", keeping their outside relationships secret from friends and family. It doesn't require making any radical changes in your lifestyle or your world view. One major benefit for many couples is that they feel secure that they won't be abandoned, because their spouse has agreed that outside relationships will be secondary. This is simpler and easier to organize logistically than other forms of open relationships. If there is any conflict over time, loyalty or commitment, the spouse always gets priority.

However, a major drawback of this model is that outside relationships are not so simple or easy to predict or control. Having a sexual relationship with someone else often leads to becoming emotionally involved and even falling in love, frequently causing a crisis in the primary relationship and even divorce. Initiating a sexual relationship is opening a door to many possibilities, and often secondary relationships grow into something else which does not fit neatly into the confines of this model. Many people who become "secondary" lovers become angry at being subjugated to the couple, and demand equality or end the relationship. For this model to be successful, couples must be very convinced that their relationship is strong enough to weather these ups and downs. Conversely, some couples who start with this model decide eventually to shift to some form of the Multiple Primary Partners model to allow secondary relationships to become equal to the primary couple relationship.

How will you react or respond if you ever end up in the middle? Both sides in distress? Wife and Blue? With the way you are setting yourself up? You agree to automatically defer to spouse as primary if wife in distress --rational or not.

You never plan tell wife "No. I won't be doing that" or "No, I won't be doing that right now" if wife wants something irrational from you?

If so, that behavior from you is going to ding your relationship with your secondary, and you may come to resent your choice/spouse. So tread with caution.

Again, nothing wrong with wanting primary-secondary model. It could work out fine if all parties want it that way and can adhere to it.

But make sure you aren't creating a "Queen Bee" or "King Bee" situation where one person's wants holds sway over all. Or setting up conditions that paint you into a corner.

You are responsible for your own self, your own choices, and your own preparedness.

Don't pass the buck like telling your new partner "I can't do that because my spouse won't let me...."
You say "I can't do that" full stop. Because YOU chose this arrangement.

If you find these agreements with wife turn out to be wonky ones "out in the field" when you get to actual dating, I hope you have a plan to renegotiate terms.

Not trying to be a wet blanket... just saying do some more thinking and prep work if you want to handle this in a healthy way. Some couples take years of talking before actually opening up.

GL!
Galagirl
 
Last edited:
I think when we discuss it more my wife does end up settling on this idea that homogeneous relationships settle if relationships settle at all. But there are a lot of unknowns... I wouldn't be surprised if we just had some sexual encounters or a few dates. That being said... I totally went to the bar and got someone's phone number for the first time in my life last night ^.^
 
Back
Top