not-quite-poly: lovers & friends w/ benefits

[InfinitePossibility]

I agree that polyamory doesn't have to be all about sex but for most folks, it does include sex. I'll explain.

If I talk about just 3 of the many important individuals in my life. Art - my boyfriend, Sausage - my dog and Amy - a friend of mine.

With Art, I have romance and sex. Outside of sex, we express romance by saying that we love each other, we hold hands, we hug, we plan and go out to do fun stuff just the two of us frequently. We share our thoughts, hopes and dreams. We support each other through difficult times and celebrate good times. Our lives are becoming more entwined. We go out with friends regularly and people who know us see us as a couple.

With Sausage, there is romance but no sex. I tell Sausage that I love him all the time. We snuggle together in bed. We gaze into each other's eyes for minutes at at time. We hug often. We spend time together alone every day going for romantic walks in the countryside. We follow our mutual interests together. Sausage and I are utterly committed to each other. Although we are not the same species, we both shape our lives around understanding the other and doing what we can to make the other's life better - it is an enormous commitment and responsibility. We go out to visit friends regularly. People who know us, know how big the commitment is between us and often ask after Sausage if he isn't with me.

With Amy, there is some romance and no sex. Amy and I exchange I love yous sometimes. We hug. We go on romantic walks in the countryside together, often watching the sun go down from a beautiful spot. We cook for each other. We share our thoughts, hopes and dreams. We support each other through difficult times and celebrate good ones. Our lives are becoming more entwined.

I would describe my relationship status as monogamous. Simply because although there is plenty of love and romance in my life outside of the relationship I have with Art, Art and I only have sex with each other. It's a monogamous relationship for that reason - that Art and I both share loving feelings with others doesn't change that we only have sex with each other.

Perhaps if I was asexual and also didn't have an interest in sex with Art, I might describe my relationship status as polyamorous simply to make it clear that I have multiple loving, romantic relationships.

So from my point of view - and I'd suspect the point of view of many, polyamory is about sex. Maybe not just about sex but it is about sex. In the same way as monogamy is about sex. It's not just sex but to describe a relationship as monogamous is to speak about the sex lives of the people in the relationship.

It does sound as if your ex and you were not compatible. Maybe that doesn't mean she was doing poly wrong? Maybe it just means that for whatever reason things didn't match up between the two of you to allow it to progress beyond sex?

I meet new people regularly. Lots of the time, even if I really like them, our lives our so different that the extent of the friendship that develops between us is remaining in loose contact on facebook. This doesn't mean that I'm not open to deeper, more entwined friendships - just that those won't happen every time.

When I met Amy about 4 years ago, it so happened that the circumstances of our lives were such that it was easy for us to develop a closer bond than either of us might have expected. That just doesn't happen every time.

IP

P.S. I prefer to label my relationships if I need to rather than myself. So I'd call my current relationship monogamous rather than say that I am monogamous. In actual fact, I have, at different times in my life, taken a solo poly approach, a completely single and celibate approach and a monogamous approach. I don't know how I'll feel or what will happen in the future so I avoid labelling myself because to do that makes any change more difficult, in my experience.

 

[kdt26417]

I wouldn't want to define "romance" in that way, e.g., I don't have a romantic relationship with either of my cats. Sure I hug and pet them and stuff, but I think of that as just being friendly.

Now having said that, I don't own the word "romance," so if others want to define it differently than I do, I won't complain.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

I wouldn't want to define "romance" in that way, e.g., I don't have a romantic relationship with either of my cats. Sure I hug and pet them and stuff, but I think of that as just being friendly.

Until quite recently, I don't think I would have defined romance in that sort of way either. I have always been of the view that romance is just a way of describing sexual relationships with people who you also go out and do non-sexual things with.

However, since reading a number of posts from people who are asexual but who do experience romantic feelings, I've backed off a bit from my stance that sex must be present for romance to exist.

I'm more coming to the view that I'd consider romance to be happening in situations where the two individuals are not related to each other, where there is some affectionate physical contact, where the individuals involved enjoy doing some kind of activity together and where the bond between them can be seen by other people.

So I wouldn't consider it romantic to plan a night out with my mum or my sister - because they are both related to me.

But under the new way of thinking about it, I very much would consider lots of my interactions with Sausage the dog to be romantic.

Having lived with and loved cats, I'm not sure I would describe relationships between humans and cats in that way. Cats aren't social animals and although I feel that they form bonds with humans, I think they differ in some significant ways from the bonds that form between humans and dogs.

It's those bonds that allow dogs to become guides for people with no sight and to act as alerts for people with no hearing and to provide emotional support to people who otherwise could not go out into the world and function. I've never heard of a cat who had any interest at all in forming those sorts of relationships.

I may change my stance again - this is one I'm kind of trying on for size. It seems to fit the way lots of people describe romance and seems to be a way I can understand the various claims for romance being able to exist without sex.

IP

 

[kdt26417]

I see Romantic Land as being somewhere between Platonic Land and Sexual Land. Some relationships pay visits to all three lands; some, two or one land/s.

A romantic relationship can (and usually does) have (a) platonic part/s in it.

Re: dogs and cats ... dogs are eager pleasers. They want to know they are appreciated, and are willing to help in any way they can. Cats do like affection, but they also like to play hard to get. They say that dogs can be fully domesticated, but cats can't. Cats always have a streak of solitary wilderness life in them, even after decades of life in a human home. There's a distance between a cat and his/her humans.

 

[PurpleSun]

I agree that polyamory doesn't have to be all about sex but for most folks, it does include sex. I'll explain.

If I talk about just 3 of the many important individuals in my life. Art - my boyfriend, Sausage - my dog and Amy - a friend of mine.

With Art, I have romance and sex. Outside of sex, we express romance by saying that we love each other, we hold hands, we hug, we plan and go out to do fun stuff just the two of us frequently. We share our thoughts, hopes and dreams. We support each other through difficult times and celebrate good times. Our lives are becoming more entwined. We go out with friends regularly and people who know us see us as a couple.

With Sausage, there is romance but no sex. I tell Sausage that I love him all the time. We snuggle together in bed. We gaze into each other's eyes for minutes at at time. We hug often. We spend time together alone every day going for romantic walks in the countryside. We follow our mutual interests together. Sausage and I are utterly committed to each other. Although we are not the same species, we both shape our lives around understanding the other and doing what we can to make the other's life better - it is an enormous commitment and responsibility. We go out to visit friends regularly. People who know us, know how big the commitment is between us and often ask after Sausage if he isn't with me.

With Amy, there is some romance and no sex. Amy and I exchange I love yous sometimes. We hug. We go on romantic walks in the countryside together, often watching the sun go down from a beautiful spot. We cook for each other. We share our thoughts, hopes and dreams. We support each other through difficult times and celebrate good ones. Our lives are becoming more entwined.

I would describe my relationship status as monogamous. Simply because although there is plenty of love and romance in my life outside of the relationship I have with Art, Art and I only have sex with each other. It's a monogamous relationship for that reason - that Art and I both share loving feelings with others doesn't change that we only have sex with each other.

Perhaps if I was asexual and also didn't have an interest in sex with Art, I might describe my relationship status as polyamorous simply to make it clear that I have multiple loving, romantic relationships.

So from my point of view - and I'd suspect the point of view of many, polyamory is about sex. Maybe not just about sex but it is about sex. In the same way as monogamy is about sex. It's not just sex but to describe a relationship as monogamous is to speak about the sex lives of the people in the relationship.

It does sound as if your ex and you were not compatible. Maybe that doesn't mean she was doing poly wrong? Maybe it just means that for whatever reason things didn't match up between the two of you to allow it to progress beyond sex?

I meet new people regularly. Lots of the time, even if I really like them, our lives our so different that the extent of the friendship that develops between us is remaining in loose contact on facebook. This doesn't mean that I'm not open to deeper, more entwined friendships - just that those won't happen every time.

When I met Amy about 4 years ago, it so happened that the circumstances of our lives were such that it was easy for us to develop a closer bond than either of us might have expected. That just doesn't happen every time.

IP

P.S. I prefer to label my relationships if I need to rather than myself. So I'd call my current relationship monogamous rather than say that I am monogamous. In actual fact, I have, at different times in my life, taken a solo poly approach, a completely single and celibate approach and a monogamous approach. I don't know how I'll feel or what will happen in the future so I avoid labelling myself because to do that makes any change more difficult, in my experience.

I think she was doing it wrong because the sole reason she was open was because her wife had no libido due to menopause. She had zero interest in reading/learning anything, she didn't communicate what she wanted-- in fact, when I told her I was seeking to be a bit of a secondary partner, and what that meant to me, she played along to get me into the sack. She was dishonest and slimy about the fact that she was using me to solve the issue of sexual compatibility in her marriage.

There are many ways to do poly. I firmly believe there's not real WRONG way, except the typical wrongness that comes up in any relationship, poly or otherwise. However, one of them shouldn't be using the "third" or whatever term you wish to use to solve problems that are better solved internally, and certainly lying and misleading someone is not a good thing. That's my beef...I never meant to imply that there's just one right way to do poly.

Of course there isn't, but I think there are a few universal things that happened here that are bad for any relationship, no matter the nature of it.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

Totally agree. Deceiving people to get them into bed isn't kind behaviour.

However, to put out another perspective, if somebody described themselves as wanting me to be a secondary partner, I would pretty much assume that it was fine to concentrate on the sexual side of things.

I have an enormous problem with the tendency that exists among some poly folks* to rank their partners into a pecking order. It seems to me like an unkind way of approaching human relationships and if I were to agree to be somebody's secondary partner, I'd assume that what was between us wasn't all that important and that we were pretty much just getting together for sex.

I think I'd treat somebody pretty poorly if they explained to me that they wanted me to be a secondary partner. I expect to be treated like a whole person in my own right by everybody. I think that all human beings (and companion animals) should be treated that way. I think that knowing I was viewed as secondary and 'on the side' of a more important relationship would strongly influence my behaviour even if I consented for some reason to be part of that sort of set up.

IP

* I am generally a total grump about relationships in general. I consider marriage to be immoral and not something I'd want in my life. Similarly, I consider the vast majority of poly relationships that operate as a primary relationship with secondary folk 'on the side' as immoral.

That's not to say that I go around campaigning against either. In fact, I've been a bridesmaid 3 times and signed numerous petitions campaigning for same sex marriage here in Scotland. I have a number of friends who've operated primary/secondary type poly arrangements.

I don't particularly approve, however, and I don't think that the fact that people consent to marry each other all the time and that people consent to be secondary partners all the time is sufficient to make the ethical difficulties in those sorts of relationships disappear. Consent is necessary but it is not enough.

 

[PurpleSun]

Totally agree. Deceiving people to get them into bed isn't kind behaviour.

However, to put out another perspective, if somebody described themselves as wanting me to be a secondary partner, I would pretty much assume that it was fine to concentrate on the sexual side of things.

I have an enormous problem with the tendency that exists among some poly folks* to rank their partners into a pecking order. It seems to me like an unkind way of approaching human relationships and if I were to agree to be somebody's secondary partner, I'd assume that what was between us wasn't all that important and that we were pretty much just getting together for sex.

I think I'd treat somebody pretty poorly if they explained to me that they wanted me to be a secondary partner. I expect to be treated like a whole person in my own right by everybody. I think that all human beings (and companion animals) should be treated that way. I think that knowing I was viewed as secondary and 'on the side' of a more important relationship would strongly influence my behaviour even if I consented for some reason to be part of that sort of set up.

IP

* I am generally a total grump about relationships in general. I consider marriage to be immoral and not something I'd want in my life. Similarly, I consider the vast majority of poly relationships that operate as a primary relationship with secondary folk 'on the side' as immoral.

That's not to say that I go around campaigning against either. In fact, I've been a bridesmaid 3 times and signed numerous petitions campaigning for same sex marriage here in Scotland. I have a number of friends who've operated primary/secondary type poly arrangements.

I don't particularly approve, however, and I don't think that the fact that people consent to marry each other all the time and that people consent to be secondary partners all the time is sufficient to make the ethical difficulties in those sorts of relationships disappear. Consent is necessary but it is not enough.

For me, and again, just FOR ME-- a secondary partner is a loving partner who doesn't live with me, and has no intention of it, and doesn't share life responsibilities. For instance, say, she has a kid who needs to be picked up from school. I'd not be the person who does that sort of thing. Her primary (if she has one) would be the one. Or, say, my mom was ailing and I needed someone to leave work early and go check on her. She wouldn't be the one to do that. My primary would.

Also, when she messaged me on OKC, I had seen in her profile that we weren't looking for the same thing. When I addressed this, she said she just hadn't updated, blah blah blah, etc.

Here's a blog post I wrote in my little rant room regarding what went down in that relationship. It might give you a bigger/better picture of where I'm coming from. Just keep in mind the generalizations in there are specific to what this woman needed to hear/be told, but that I was too enraged/things ended too messily for us to ever have this conversation. It's specific to this situation, not necessarily in general. Here ya go.

But really, it was the deception, her unwillingness to do a lot of things,etc, etc, etc.

And BTW, I'm pretty grumpy towards relationships at this point in time as well.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

PurpleSun - Thank you so much for this conversation and for sharing your painful memories and experiences. I have found this incredibly useful in helping to tease out some of my own emotional responses to thinking about poly. You are a smart woman and I'm really grateful you have taken the time to discuss it with me.

For as long as I can remember, I have considered marriage to be on shaky moral ground. It entails making promises that people have no idea if they can keep at the time. It also entails the treating of the spouse like an object rather than a person in their own right - they become 'husband' or 'wife' - half a person who must (due to the promise they made) keep having the same sort of relationship with their other half until one of them dies. This is not something I'd feel comfortable entering into so I haven't.

I was surprised when I started researching polyamory to find myself experiencing some of the same responses to it as I do toward marriage. It had seemed like such a great thing when Art first talked to me about it. Exactly the sort of thing I'd really like. Then I found myself feeling very differently.

I've talked on here and to Art about it loads of times and eventually came to the conclusion that the only kind of poly I'd be happy to participate in is solo poly. That if being actively poly is very important to Art then he and I need to shift our relationship to one of friendship. He doesn't want to hence our agreement to be monogamous.

Until this discussion, I hadn't realised fully the root of my problems with some models of poly - in particular models where one relationship is primary and others are secondary. I think it is similar to my objections to marriage - to set relationships up that way is morally tricky.

Not so much because of the promising. It's more about objectifying others. If somebody has a primary partner with whom they share their life, with whom they plan holidays and moves for work or when they retire, who they give support to as they study, who's dependants they help care for and who does the same for them then yay. That person has tons of support and a relationship that society sees as valid. This is all great.

What if they don't want to be monogamous? That would make them feel tied down. Why not explore more? What's wrong with more love in the world? And this person has the the love and support of a great primary partner who is their rock.

So they go ahead and meet one or more secondary partners. Those relationships develop. There are dinners together, concerts, 'I love yous' flow freely, the sex is great, sleepovers and getting to wake up together are wonderful. Who could object?

The thing that I see as morally difficult in all of this is that the secondary partners become like objects. Much loved and deeply cared for objects but objects nonetheless. They (like a married spouse) are there to fulfill a role. There are limits on the relationship they have. No matter what feelings develop, they must never expect to have their life entwined with their love's life. The primary partner has that privilege.

The secondary person must find other sources of help and support for their life projects and their caring responsibilities. They cannot expect that somebody who they have become very close to would be there for them in that way. They must not expect to share a life with their partner - no matter how much love there is between them.

To me, the objectification here is a little worse than it is between married people. At least for folk who are married, they have a life partner, somebody to shape their life around. More - they have that in a shape that is acceptable to the general population around them which makes talking to others about their relationship easier.

For secondary partners in poly relationships, things are not that way. The person they love certainly isn't going to shape a life around them. Plus - the relationship structure is such that finding people to talk to about it will be difficult. Most people have never heard of poly and many people who have consider it to be a form of cheating. So finding help and support is just going to be more difficult for the secondary person.

This strikes me as an unkind way to treat a loved one. It isn't something I'd want to be part of - certainly not as either of the primary partners.

I understand that there are enormous societal pressures on all of us to see others as a way of getting things that we want rather than as individuals who matter just as much as we do. I see the pressures and I think that they tend to make marriage and also a primary/secondary approach to poly understandable as something that people are attracted to.

Thank you again PurpleSun for your help in being able to articulate that. I really do appreciate it and I wish you lots of luck in finding what you seek.

IP

 

[Evie]

And this is why everyone does it differently, or at least with major nuances.

You're talking about a secondary like they have no choice in the matter and are consequently an object.

I have been a secondary many times and I love it. The people with whom I Choose to be in a secondary role are those with whom I Choose not to live a day to day life with. There are dinners together, concerts, 'I love yous' flow freely, the sex is great, sleepovers and getting to wake up together are wonderful. I don't want these people to shape their life around me, I don't want to shape my life around them. I can come and go from their immediate presence as I please, we are all grown ups and are sensitive to each other's desires and to that of the other ebbs and flows of life that we recognise when there are times that we can indulge our connections in person, and then there are times that we are at a distance, but not loving each other any less, but giving and/or taking our own space to do whatever else it is that we do.

These relationships don't end, they just converge and diverge.

And now I am married I have chosen to walk hand in hand through this life with my husband, that is the core of what makes him my primary partner. My other lover-friends are secondary to me as I am secondary to them because almost all have their own primaries. This is what we Choose. We do not objectify each other because we love each other and connect so very deeply.

My desire is that each and every relationship I have be able to be expressed to its fullest. But that doesn't mean that the fullest has to be living together, having children together, growing old together, paying bills together, family xmas together etc. If I did that with all of my connections... no, there is no sensible way to finish that sentence.

I love being "secondary" or "tertiary" or "the mistress" "the lover" or "the friend" or whatever name you want to put on it or not, because it means that I have infinite possibilities for connections and how they begin, develop, wax, wane, play out, et cetera.

If you're not polyfi, then why object to being secondary? I'd be exhausted if I was anything else!!!

 

[KC43]

The way you describe "secondary" etc. makes sense, and sounds like a healthy situation. That's the type of thing that I had with Guy and with S2, with each of them being "secondary" to Hubby, but I didn't term it that way. To me, each of them mattered as much as Hubby and was equally important in my life, but Hubby had a few extra perks by virtue of being the one I live with.

Unfortunately, some people use the term "secondary" to mean "You'll never matter to me as much as my primary, because you're just someone we added to the relationship." Particularly in cases where couple privilege rules the situation, a secondary sometimes is treated like an object who can either put up or shut up. Or, worse, is treated like a marital aid. In some cases, the secondary does feel as if they have no choice, or the only choice is between being treated like they don't matter or losing the relationship entirely.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

Your life sounds like it is perfect for you, Evie. It is lovely to read such a positive account.

You're talking about a secondary like they have no choice in the matter and are consequently an object.

I was quite careful not to talk about people having choice to be secondary or not. Or about them having choice about accepting that position in somebody else's life. Choice among middle class Western people (which is what most of us on this board seem to be) is pretty much a given. We all are able to choose relationship structures.

I just don't find it useful to base my ideas of what is and isn't ethical behaviour for me on what other people will choose to do. I wouldn't even base it on what I might choose to do. I choose regularly to do things that aren't good for me (drinking too much, social smoking, eating too much).

This is especially the case when considering areas of behaviour that relate to thoughts and beliefs occupying a strong, dominant position in society. That includes behaviour when it comes to sexual partners.

Nor do I consider the fact that there exist people who are capable of having the sorts of sexual relationships I see as ethically problematic in a way that I think is excellent as a reason to change my beliefs.

I strongly believe that the prison system in the UK is horribly unethical and not a good way to deal with problem behaviour. The fact that I know some wonderful people who work in that system and also know some people who have had their lives turned around in a good way while serving a prison sentence in no way changes that belief.

I tend to base what I feel is ethical on research, my own experiences and lots of reflection.

I'm not suggesting that anybody else believes what I do or comes to the same conclusions as me. I have a life long tendency to over think things that has only been made stronger by both degrees that I have and the job I've been doing for 18 years. I'm not all that interested in changing anybody else's mind. I am interested in understanding and developing my own ethical code so that I can use that as a guide when connecting with new people and situations.

IP

 

[MightyMax]

I honestly believe that it's the fact that we have a vague shared understanding of the secondary relationship and what it really means that allows people to be poly. If we were in a situation where we couldn't envisage how one relationship could stay within boundaries that allowed us to also have a primary relationship, children, other responsibilities, I think a lot of people would just keep polyamory as a nice idea that has no basis in reality. It's the fact that you can meet someone else in a traditional but open marriage and share intimacy without impinging on said marriage, all without lying to anyone, that makes polyamory both attractive and feasible. People often ask how it works when you already live with one partner and of course, most people want to live with their partners at some point, so what happens when new partner wants to move in but you already live with spouse? It isn't fair on new partner. That's when you explain that as you're both content with your relationship taking a secondary structure, living together isn't something either of you need or may not want with anyone. The secondary relationship makes it easier to not be on the traditional relationship escalator.

It simply doesn't make sense for you to describe a whole relationship structure as unethical unless you doubt that the people involved are never making an autonomous choice that really works for them. The limits of secondary relationships exist because the people involved need them there for the relationship to work in the way they need it to. If I applied your implication that maintaining limits and boundaries compromised the authenticity or ethical soundness of a given situation, nobody would ever be able to say no to a specific sexual act once they had said yes to sex. It would be unethical as the other person might need things from you that you're not willing or able to give and as you're up for some form of sex, you can't now refuse to do certain acts. It's either yes all the way or it's no.


I think a lot of what you call unethical is actually a projection. You know that you could never be a content secondary partner who didn't need more than the average person who has a marriage etc could give. You know that you would constantly push for more because you need the set-up of a typical primary relationship to feel loved. It would be unethical for anyone to sustain a secondary relationship with you because you'd be terminally unhappy at not being a spouse-like figure in a partner's life. That's not the same for everyone else though. The secondary status actually allows some people to share more intimacy than they usually would as they know the boundaries are in place and everyone involved agrees with them. I'm not just talking about other married people here, I'm talking mostly about solo poly players. It's the existence of the secondary relationship status that allows them to engage in more than "just sex" as they aren't apprehensive about being forced onto the relationship ladder.

 

[Evie]

Hint: I'm not the only one who finds this type of poly perfect.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

Much of what you say makes sense. I do suspect that the poor ethics starts with marriage. Primary/secondary poly relationships may well arise out of a desire to do marriage differently. They may well suit some people very well. However, it seems to me that primary/secondary poly structures are as unethical as marriage is.

Consent is, of course, required for something to be ethical but it is not the only thing that is required.

I don't at all follow your logic about sexual consent. I don't follow your point about how I have at any point suggested that people can't change their mind. Could you explain that again if you have time?

Marriage works for a great many people. Most people, in fact. Almost everybody I know who is married feels that their life is better for it. Many people I know who aren't married want to get married at some point in their lives.


All of that consent and people preferring it does not make it ethical.

Marriage involves making promises that people often don't keep - most ethical codes would agree that making promises and then not keeping them is unethical.

Marriage between men and women tends to involve one man giving the woman to the other man - although it used to be considered ethically sound for women (and men and children of some races) to be bought and sold or given away, that is no longer the case. Marriage is pretty much the only time when it happens now in the UK - at least in very public settings it is.

To further back up the property thing just in case there are any doubts, it is common practise for the woman to change her surname just so that there is no doubt who owns her.

Then there is that marriage tends towards making both parties half of a whole instead of being a whole person in their own right.

Even if everybody consented to be part of this, that would not make it ethical. Even if everybody consented to it and did it well, that wouldn't be sufficient to make it ethical.

I would recommend - as always - having a read of Stanley Milgram's book Obedience to Authority for a frightening account of a great many people freely consenting to cause harm to complete strangers even though they could have walked away at any point.

Again - as always - Philip Zimbardo's book The Lucifer Effect is a cautionary tale of depending too much on one's own autonomy to ensure good decisions are made.

And - of course - Noam Chomsky is good on consent and Paulo Freire is good on how education can be used to help make sure that everybody thinks the one way.

You know that you could never be a content secondary partner who didn't need more than the average person who has a marriage etc could give. You know that you would constantly push for more because you need the set-up of a typical primary relationship to feel loved.

This is entirely possible. I would think harder on it but my behaviour and lifestyle choice haven't really mirrored what you describe.

I spent most of my 30s very happily single and avoiding being in any kind of relationship. Even a fairly casual FWB type arrangement would have felt too much like a relationship at that time. I just was not interested at all. I didn't lack for love and support at that time - in fact, I find it utterly odd that people need any kind of sexual relationship in order to feel loved.

Then I reached the point where I felt differently and looked for a FWB type arrangement. I felt that would have suited me fine. It over time became more serious and is now a monogamous relationship which has been going for over 5 years. We don't live together and have no plans to do so. Living together would only happen if something fairly disastrous happened to one of us and forced a change.

So no - I don't feel that I need a primary partner to feel loved. No - I don't feel that I'm projecting my own desires onto other people. I don't see the evidence for it.

IP

 

[MightyMax]

You're basically saying that in order to be ethical, a relationship must not have boundaries or limitations. You cannot say "this relationship will never include kids/living together/other primary style factors" because that's putting people into a box/role/objectifying them. That's the same as suggesting that if one consents to sex, they cannot put a limit on what sexual activity occurs. They either say yes and do whatever the other person needs them to, or they don't do it at all because putting any restrictions on how you interact is unethical.

Consent is actually the key thing between ethical and unethical. Sure, one can argue that consent was coerced, but then you're basically saying that anyone who agrees to be a secondary is broken somehow. I agree that many people sign up for secondary relationships because they don't think they can get what they really need but that isn't the status quo.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

Consent is actually the key thing between ethical and unethical.

I think I've already said that I don't agree. I have provided references for further understanding of why I don't agree that consent is the key thing. I don't really know what more I can say - it seems like an odd style for discussion to simply say the same thing again and again.

You're basically saying that in order to be ethical, a relationship must not have boundaries or limitations. You cannot say "this relationship will never include kids/living together/other primary style factors" because that's putting people into a box/role/objectifying them. That's the same as suggesting that if one consents to sex, they cannot put a limit on what sexual activity occurs. They either say yes and do whatever the other person needs them to, or they don't do it at all because putting any restrictions on how you interact is unethical.

Ah - okay. I see now. However, that is not at all what I'm saying. I won't explain further because I'm finding it hard to make myself understood when talking to you. I also don't see the point in discussions where it is necessary to simply repeat myself.

Sure, one can argue that consent was coerced, but then you're basically saying that anyone who agrees to be a secondary is broken somehow.

Again - I have not said anything of the kind.

I don't know anybody who is a happy secondary partner.

However, I do know loads of people who are happily married, not broken in any way and who I very much look up to.

I still consider marriage and primary/secondary poly as unethical structures for relationships.

 

[PurpleSun]

PurpleSun - Thank you so much for this conversation and for sharing your painful memories and experiences. I have found this incredibly useful in helping to tease out some of my own emotional responses to thinking about poly. You are a smart woman and I'm really grateful you have taken the time to discuss it with me.

For as long as I can remember, I have considered marriage to be on shaky moral ground. It entails making promises that people have no idea if they can keep at the time. It also entails the treating of the spouse like an object rather than a person in their own right - they become 'husband' or 'wife' - half a person who must (due to the promise they made) keep having the same sort of relationship with their other half until one of them dies. This is not something I'd feel comfortable entering into so I haven't.

I was surprised when I started researching polyamory to find myself experiencing some of the same responses to it as I do toward marriage. It had seemed like such a great thing when Art first talked to me about it. Exactly the sort of thing I'd really like. Then I found myself feeling very differently.

I've talked on here and to Art about it loads of times and eventually came to the conclusion that the only kind of poly I'd be happy to participate in is solo poly. That if being actively poly is very important to Art then he and I need to shift our relationship to one of friendship. He doesn't want to hence our agreement to be monogamous.

Until this discussion, I hadn't realised fully the root of my problems with some models of poly - in particular models where one relationship is primary and others are secondary. I think it is similar to my objections to marriage - to set relationships up that way is morally tricky.

Not so much because of the promising. It's more about objectifying others. If somebody has a primary partner with whom they share their life, with whom they plan holidays and moves for work or when they retire, who they give support to as they study, who's dependants they help care for and who does the same for them then yay. That person has tons of support and a relationship that society sees as valid. This is all great.

What if they don't want to be monogamous? That would make them feel tied down. Why not explore more? What's wrong with more love in the world? And this person has the the love and support of a great primary partner who is their rock.

So they go ahead and meet one or more secondary partners. Those relationships develop. There are dinners together, concerts, 'I love yous' flow freely, the sex is great, sleepovers and getting to wake up together are wonderful. Who could object?

The thing that I see as morally difficult in all of this is that the secondary partners become like objects. Much loved and deeply cared for objects but objects nonetheless. They (like a married spouse) are there to fulfill a role. There are limits on the relationship they have. No matter what feelings develop, they must never expect to have their life entwined with their love's life. The primary partner has that privilege.

The secondary person must find other sources of help and support for their life projects and their caring responsibilities. They cannot expect that somebody who they have become very close to would be there for them in that way. They must not expect to share a life with their partner - no matter how much love there is between them.

To me, the objectification here is a little worse than it is between married people. At least for folk who are married, they have a life partner, somebody to shape their life around. More - they have that in a shape that is acceptable to the general population around them which makes talking to others about their relationship easier.

For secondary partners in poly relationships, things are not that way. The person they love certainly isn't going to shape a life around them. Plus - the relationship structure is such that finding people to talk to about it will be difficult. Most people have never heard of poly and many people who have consider it to be a form of cheating. So finding help and support is just going to be more difficult for the secondary person.

This strikes me as an unkind way to treat a loved one. It isn't something I'd want to be part of - certainly not as either of the primary partners.

I understand that there are enormous societal pressures on all of us to see others as a way of getting things that we want rather than as individuals who matter just as much as we do. I see the pressures and I think that they tend to make marriage and also a primary/secondary approach to poly understandable as something that people are attracted to.

Thank you again PurpleSun for your help in being able to articulate that. I really do appreciate it and I wish you lots of luck in finding what you seek.

IP

Heya InfinitePossibility, no problem! While that whole debacle was painful, sure, I'm pretty much over it, other than really navigating the ways in which I REALLY don't want to deal with someone who is so hellbent on getting her way at all costs again. I'm learning a lot here as well. Interesting discussion, all the different ways we all do relationships/poly, and what find to be acceptable/moral (or not). See, in my view, there's nothing immoral about marriage, or poly, or any promises, in any kind of relationships, because, 9 times out of 10, people have every intention of keeping that promise when it is made. IF they can't, there's always breaking up and divorce.

But hey, if that's not something you are okay with, great. Everyone is different.

I've learned quite a bit as well here, so, win win!
Thanks for engaging.

 

[JaneQSmythe]

...so what happens when new partner wants to move in but you already live with spouse?

Well ... a number of us choose to "move in" the new partner. (Me, Bluebird, Phy - to name a few.) For us, just because at the beginning a relationship may be described as "secondary" doesn't mean that it can't evolve into "co-primary" if that is what the participants desire. Just saying. Labels are just words, it is the people that matter and what works for them.

 

[JaneQSmythe]

Marriage is just a word - it is the people that matter. When we got married, MrS and I discussed, ad nauseum, what our marriage meant to us.

Marriage involves making promises that people often don't keep - most ethical codes would agree that making promises and then not keeping them is unethical.

So, we didn't "make promises", we "stated intentions". - to grow and learn and explore this journey called life together and support each other in that endeavor. (And none of that "forsaking all others" crap.)

Marriage between men and women tends to involve one man giving the woman to the other man ...

Nope, none of that BS. Nobody owns me except ME, period. I can choose to share myself - to give the gift of my time and attention - with another. Nobody got "given away" at my wedding. (OK, maybe MrS's mom gave him to me in the "he's your problem now" sense - just kidding.)

To further back up the property thing just in case there are any doubts, it is common practise for the woman to change her surname just so that there is no doubt who owns her.

Totally didn't do that either...

Then there is that marriage tends towards making both parties half of a whole instead of being a whole person in their own right.

I've noticed that tendency - and it has always puzzled me. I am not a half a person, and neither is my husband. We don't "complete" each other, we "complement" each other. And I complement others and they me - as friends, family, lovers, etc. - or I wouldn't have them in my life.

********************

All of that being said - I very much agree with much of what you say about something not necessarily being ethical just because people seek and consent to it. It is my intention (not promise) to conduct my relationships in the most ethical way that I can envision.

Some people have argued that I have taken the word "marriage" and re-defined it to mean something different, and that I should use a "different word" to describe my relationship with MrS. OK - pick a different word then, doesn't change what we have together.

My counter-point is that EVERY marriage/relationship/whatever is actually defined by the people participating in it - regardless of the words that they choose to use. Each relationship is unique anyway, because each person is - does every person need a "different word" to define their unique combination? I'm ok with dumping "long, perhaps life-long" relationships in the "marriage" bucket and letting the participants sort out what that "means".

(I'm a "lumper" not a "splitter" - nuances require discussion, which wouldn't change if we had more labels, because nuances are infinite.)

 

[nycindie]

Redirect

I'd love to see this thread make its way back to the original topic, instead of debating the validity or ethics of marriage and/or hierarchies in poly.

I'd love to hear from more polyfolk (and "not-quite-polyfolk") about how their casual lovers and FWBs fit into and enrich their lives, and how it works for them.