Not really a blog

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Luckily we are polyamorous and I can get sexual satisfaction from others (and love, as well).

I don't think that your relationships exactly oppose what I'm saying. For instance, you and Pixi didn't open your relationship to fix an incompatibility. You met presumably as two people independently seeking ENM or at least always having the understanding it would be open because at least one of you were poly.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

There's a popular poly guru type on Fetlife. He wears a hat. When the whole Veaux/Rickert thing was going on, I had him in mind as one of the next people to fall.

There's just something about him.

Recently he had a status where he called out some exes who had been petty enough to mention that he rarely includes them in his writings when they broke up with him.

For reference, he really is a well known poly blogger. He has some friends that also blog about other things and they are well known. It's like a circle of internet famous people in their specific field of interest.

My guess is that he has a lot of unacknowledged hierarchy in his relationships. The fact he rarely blogs about his other partners is probably an indication of that hierarchy. If I were them, the way he has responded to what they said is evidence that they were totally right.

If he came to a poly group on fetlife or here or reddit and presented this story as an anonymous user, the membership would immediately see it for what it is. They'd be very critical of the disparaging way he spoke about his exes.

Instead he got pretty much universal support about how stupid his exes were to count such things. This is by the very same people in poly groups who tear down random users who admit to hierarchy. And the same people who say we must ALL learn from what happened with Franklin and other high profile people in the kink and poly communities.

The truth is this guy on Fetlife probably blocks dissenters. Sites usually support users in doing so. In cases like these, I toy with whether creating a space where you can control an echo chamber is a good thing. Ultimately I think you should be able to if it has to be one or the other.

However, in a perfect world, there would be spaces where you cannot. Or individuals that cannot. You're not allowed a platform if you won't defend your ideas. You'll be called in/out if you promote problematic behaviours or situations. A place where there isn't any protection from critique other than keeping your views private.

I don't think you have any right to be able to share ideas with potentially millions of people and have those views unchallenged in a space you create for yourself. Forget legality for a minute, but I can only see that as the site essentially supporting whatever toxicity the users promote.

It's tricky. It's a social media problem. The problem with having sites and forums and whatever that allow users to share their personal thoughts freely using that platform to amplify their voice.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

My old lady rant today is about young girls being able to present themselves as adults.

I'm in a group where missing people in the UK are shared. I joined it ages ago when a local child was missing and that's where the post was shared. I've never bothered leave.

Most days, they'll feature a female teenager or even preteen. Face full of make up, dyed hair, fake nails, duck pout, the whole thing. The one today looks at least in her mid twenties but she's 13.

Am I victim blaming? No. I don't blame the child. I blame their parents for allowing it. It's directly linked to why their children are out, usually with grown men and don't come home. They don't know they are a child.

 

[icesong]

There's a popular poly guru type on Fetlife. He wears a hat. When the whole Veaux/Rickert thing was going on, I had him in mind as one of the next people to fall.

There's just something about him.

Recently he had a status where he called out some exes who had been petty enough to mention that he rarely includes them in his writings when they broke up with him.

For reference, he really is a well known poly blogger. He has some friends that also blog about other things and they are well known. It's like a circle of internet famous people in their specific field of interest.

My guess is that he has a lot of unacknowledged hierarchy in his relationships. The fact he rarely blogs about his other partners is probably an indication of that hierarchy. If I were them, the way he has responded to what they said is evidence that they were totally right.

If he came to a poly group on fetlife or here or reddit and presented this story as an anonymous user, the membership would immediately see it for what it is. They'd be very critical of the disparaging way he spoke about his exes.

Instead he got pretty much universal support about how stupid his exes were to count such things. This is by the very same people in poly groups who tear down random users who admit to hierarchy. And the same people who say we must ALL learn from what happened with Franklin and other high profile people in the kink and poly communities.

The truth is this guy on Fetlife probably blocks dissenters. Sites usually support users in doing so. In cases like these, I toy with whether creating a space where you can control an echo chamber is a good thing. Ultimately I think you should be able to if it has to be one or the other.

However, in a perfect world, there would be spaces where you cannot. Or individuals that cannot. You're not allowed a platform if you won't defend your ideas. You'll be called in/out if you promote problematic behaviours or situations. A place where there isn't any protection from critique other than keeping your views private.

I don't think you have any right to be able to share ideas with potentially millions of people and have those views unchallenged in a space you create for yourself. Forget legality for a minute, but I can only see that as the site essentially supporting whatever toxicity the users promote.

It's tricky. It's a social media problem. The problem with having sites and forums and whatever that allow users to share their personal thoughts freely using that platform to amplify their voice.

If you’re referring to who I think you are (user name involves an animal member of the family Mustelidae?) he’s kind of stepped back from serious blogging for exactly that reason. (And back before he was a fetlife celeb he was a livejournal celeb and had some TRULY epic fails there.)

That said… to be fair, he never said he WAS non hierarchical and HAS acknowledged that.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

If you’re referring to who I think you are (user name involves an animal member of the family Mustelidae?) he’s kind of stepped back from serious blogging for exactly that reason. (And back before he was a fetlife celeb he was a livejournal celeb and had some TRULY epic fails there.)

That said… to be fair, he never said he WAS non hierarchical and HAS acknowledged that.

Yeah I can't see how he'd hide that. But fetlife are usually really critical of hierarchy - whether you're upfront about it or not. If he was a random user in a poly group, people would have immediately seen through his narrative to speak about why a "secondary" partner might raise such issues. They'd have been on her side, especially if she's a woman.

Here they see a guru and they're immediately like "Yeah what a pathetic bitch"

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I mentioned a guy I knew who is super laid back about everything. I've mentioned I'd go crazy as his partner because his level of "non-attachment" just isn't suited to me.

He has a stepchild that's getting married but he's not going. The couple have very exacting requirements of their guests and he doesn't feel like he'd have a good time there, so he has told them that he doesn't want to come.

The bride feels attacked for wanting what they (or she) wants and that he is being unreasonable for opting out. He thinks everyone should have a nice day that day and do what they'd find most enjoyable. For him, that isn't a wedding under those conditions. He doesn't see why his presence would be pivotal on them having a good time given that their marriage commitment is (or should be) about them two of them.

His partner is upset but everyone knows his values. My guess is that they just want a resolution which doesn't upset anyone.

I admire him. I just ponder if it's worth the fallout.

 

[MeeraReed]

Sexual incompatibility is rarely a good reason to open a relationship. In my experience, a relationship is sexually unfulfilling for one of two reasons -

1) The people have different sexual needs (this could be likes/dislikes/kinks/libido)

2) (At least) One person doesn't want to have sex with the other.

If number 1 is so much of a problem that you're thinking of shifting your entire relationship, it probably means you're just generally incompatible. Opening the relationship won't solve that.

I was meaning to comment on this, as Mags did (if you don't mind discussion on your "Not Really a Blog").

Similarly to Mags, I am in a long-term relationship where differing sexual needs are a huge part of why we are both poly/doing ENM. My partner has a much higher sex drive than me, more "complex" needs, more desire for kink, desire for lots of kinks I don't do, desire for more variety, etc. (And there are some sexual things I like that he doesn't really do, and although I don't have much motivation to seek out others, I enjoy knowing I have the freedom to do so).

Also like Mags, we were both already doing ENM when we met, so there was no "opening" a relationship. (In fact, kinda the opposite, as we fell in love from excessive casual sex, lol, and slowly fell into a serious relationship).

I get that you're only talking about opening a monogamous relationship in your points here, so starting out poly doesn't apply.

But it sounds like you're also saying that strongly differing sexual needs probably just means generally incompatibility for a relationship? I was pondering that because I don't think that's true...

But maybe you are talking about relationships in which the people are TOTALLY incompatible sexually, like not really wanting to have sex with each or having totally unsatisfying sex. Which, yes. Been there, and it was indeed an indicator of total lack of compatibility in general (but I was too young and inexperienced to recognize that at the time).

My current partner and I, despite differing sexual needs, are actually sexually compatible. I mean, we have really good sex and our kinks align with each other in general, so there is no PROBLEM between us sexually. And even though his sex drive is MUCH higher than mine, mine is far from low! So we don't have a basic sexual incompatibility (which is maybe what you are talking about in this post).

Anyway, I do think that ENM/poly is an excellent way to have relationships precisely because I believe that everyone's sexuality is complex, fluctuates over time, and no two people are 100% compatible sexually throughout their entire lives. (Or 100% compatible in other ways throughout their lives). A main reason I am non-monogamous is exactly because people's sexual needs will almost always differ!

But I agree that maybe that's not a good reason to OPEN a monogamous relationship.

But then--is there ANY good reason to open a monogamous relationship? Other than both people joyously wanting to embrace a philosophy of non-monogamy and both being willing to start over with a new relationship model?

Like, one person discovers they are asexual. Still seems like a complicated and painful way to enter polyamory. Or one person wants to explore their bisexuality. Well, we have seen how fraught with pitfalls that scenario is! Or one person falls in love with someone else and cheats emotionally if not physically--a terrible way to begin polyamory!

Couples that successfully open often already had a poly or non-monogamous mindset to begin with--like, they were comfortable with casual ENM in their 20s, or they were swingers who were surprisingly chill about falling in love, or they were already non-traditional in some other ways.

I don't know. I think it's super hard to transition from long-term mono to poly. Rarely seems like a good idea.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

@MeeraReed

Agreed. And yes literally as I was writing it, I realized that opening the relationship for that reason is actually the thing that causes problems.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I don't know. I think it's super hard to transition from long-term mono to poly. Rarely seems like a good idea.

This actually reminds me of a woman on other poly forums. She's always speaking in the forums about how her husband came to her and wanted to open the relationship and she saw the merit in it, so they became polyamorous. She always tells this story to show that people can be happily monogamous and then polyamory is suggested and it just makes sense.

The thing is, I used to speak to her husband about a decade ago because at that time we were not very far away from each other. He told a very different story about why they opened their failing relationship and how it allows him to be married to his BFF while having romance and passion outside of what is essentially a friendship. He told me she doesn't like being touched much and it leaves him feeling empty.

I'm not saying that he isn't happy with her or committed to this arrangement where they live together, but opening the relationship was to compensate for a lack of passion in their marriage. It was an alternative to totally breaking up and being ex-spouses and friends. Not everyone would want to stay in such a situation so when she advises people that the desire to open a relationship isn't an indication of issues, I always think back to what I know from him.

He wasn't content with monogamy, even if she was.

 

[dingedheart]

This actually reminds me of a woman on other poly forums. She's always speaking in the forums about how her husband came to her and wanted to open the relationship and she saw the merit in it, so they became polyamorous. She always tells this story to show that people can be happily monogamous and then polyamory is suggested and it just makes sense.

I find this story fascinating because it illustrates having both sides of the story.

The thing is, I used to speak to her husband about a decade ago because at that time we were not very far away from each other. He told a very different story about why they opened their failing relationship and how it allows him to be married to his BFF while having romance and passion outside of what is essentially a friendship. He told me she doesn't like being touched much and it leaves him feeling empty.

Do you know how many yrs they were “ happily mono and or married “ prior to opening up ? AND was her aversion to being touched something she had when they met and dated and carried and hid or was this something he knew going in ?

I'm not saying that he isn't happy with her or committed to this arrangement where they live together, but opening the relationship was to compensate for a lack of passion in their marriage. It was an alternative to totally breaking up and being ex-spouses and friends. Not everyone would want to stay in such a situation so when she advises people that the desire to open a relationship isn't an indication of issues, I always think back to what I know from him.

do know if she’s poly / dating as well ? There’s been plenty of threads or stories where a spouse loses their passion for their legal partner. Could it be a case where she disliked his touch ?

He wasn't content with monogamy, even if she was.

Are we sure it’s the relationship structure ? To me it sounds like he wasn’t content with a passionless / sexless marriage and poly was the fix for both of them. Took pressure off her and it allowed him to get his needs met.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

how many yrs they were “ happily mono and or married “ prior to opening up ?

I think it was about 15 years

AND was her aversion to being touched something she had when they met and dated and carried and hid or was this something he knew going in ?

This I don't know. I do know that about 15 years in, he felt he needed to open the relationship to meet this need.

do know if she’s poly / dating as well ?

Yes. She has had another partner for nearly as long as they've been open. She isn't interested on dating others from what she said. This guy is also kind of atypical. I've seen him express his need to talk by email for around half a year before he'd consider meeting someone new.

Could it be a case where she disliked his touch ?

I think she's similar with her other partner.

Are we sure it’s the relationship structure ? To me it sounds like he wasn’t content with a passionless / sexless marriage and poly was the fix for both of them.

That's the thing though, it hasn't fixed their relationship. It's just made it easier to tolerate. Her narrative of this perfectly content mono couple just giving poly a try isn't reflective of his truth

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

There's something I'm going to call Smart Poly™. Smart Poly is where you learn everything you have about the different poly styles, about boundaries, couple's privilege, being ethical, all of those things, and you package it in a way that actually means you have multiple mutually fulfilling, happy, healthy relationships.

Remember the majority of people can band together a group of barely functional individuals who choose you for all the wrong reasons. That's not the type of poly we're aiming for, hopefully. That isn't Smart Poly. That's something more akin to people trafficking or outright abuse.

Smart Poly is where you think about everything you need from a partner, and then you consider how flexible you're going to be on those needs. You're going to figure out if some of the things you want are unrealistic, unfair or unkind because they contain the potential to become exploitative.

Smart Poly is doing things in ways that help everyone show their best self, rather than setting them up where they have little choice but to show their worst. It's having patience and realising that it might take the ideal people a little time and comfort before they can be that version of themselves that works as your partner and vice versa.

As example of someone who seems oblivious to Smart Poly is the guy who insists new dates see him play with his much adored long-term slave as one of your first dates. While I can understand that he wants people who are poly compatible, displaying the depth of your love for your current partner in a erotic performance of kink is probably a little too soon for someone trying to figure out where they'd fit in and if that space you have works for them.

If he played Smart Poly, he would orchestrate a situation which gives him the best chance of building healthy, happy relationships that exist side by side over time. Forcing a new date to watch him enjoy sexual intimacy with another partner at their resident kink venue is not the way to achieve that. It doesn't prove their suitability for any type of polyamory, it just emphasizes their lack of experience and/or lack of self-worth.

Why a lack of self-worth?

I'd hazard a bet that most people who react badly in those circumstances knew they didn't want to be there on some level. They decided to go through with it for the wrong reasons. Usually because they were made to believe that it was the right way to do things and only someone "wrong" would have a problem with it.

It's often their lack of self esteem, fear of abandonment or disappointing anyone who will then abandon them and bring generally beaten down that pushes them to ignore their reservations and just go ahead with a situation they don't want to be in. That's the kind of person who says yes to something that they don't want to do - someone who feels powerless either in general, or in that moment.

That's why coercion and gaslighting isn't part of Smart Poly. It doesn't get anyone the results they really want. Not unless those results you want are just people around that serve your purposes to their own detriment.

Finding a happy place that genuinely works for everyone is a far Smarter and kinder version of Poly.

 

[Magdlyn]

Smart Poly is a good term, but you also mention kindness. I would add successful and with potential for longer-term compatibility. Elements such as a reasonable amount of self-awareness, maturity, and balance in all things (time, money, respect) are also good to have.

We can agree that there is no "One True Poly," or "genuine" poly. Some people get the idea there is only one way to do poly. Some think the only "real" poly is a triad of people who all live together in perfect harmony. Ha.

As for your example of bringing a new date to a kink club to have them watch you dom your slave: someone that would agree to that might just really want an intro to the world of kink clubs. They might be happy you know of a good club and they're happy to have a couple dates there with you, even if they end up not liking you or your sub, just so they can get familiar with the club and maybe get intros to some attractive regulars.

On the other hand, the partner/sub might not mind being watched by a new person their dom has met, if they enjoy being objectified or are an exhibitionist. But let's leave out the BDSM aspect with another example.

In general, I feel icked out by people who insist you meet their other partner(s) on the first, second or even third date. I am dating you, not your partners. You can tell me about them (without oversharing), but I don't need to be all mixed up in your milieu when I barely know you. I'd rather have a few months of dating go by to make sure I like *you* before I meet your wife, your live-in gf and anyone else you may be dating more or less regularly. Why waste my energy on meeting all those other people? How can I get to know the dating partner well if I am being forced to put my limited social energy into three other people, as well as them?

Also, I don't see the point of getting all your partners together to immediately meet some random Joe you are kind of attracted to. Why should they care, when you're not even invested yet? Does he need to be approved by the borg? Does the group need to know they are just part of a harem or stable, easily replaced, so they better behave?

This can all be set aside by this person saying, "I insist on kitchen table poly." But why do you insist on it so heavily? Do you just want control? "Here are all my [partners/possessions/collectibles], set up in row, for me to admire and rearrange and critique and generally put to my own use."

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

The Jonah Hill saga is a perfect example of how people can cleverly use language to hide abusive and exploitative behaviour towards a partner.

There's a part where Jonah says that if she wants to develop trust (with her established partner) she has to consider him and give regard to their relationship by not even showing kindness to people he doesn't like. And this is where therapists go wrong with their (paying) clients. I fully believe that he interpreted a therapist telling him that he's allowed "boundaries" and to feel loved and respected. I believe the therapist told him you're not going to feel that from everyone so move on if you don't. All healthy things.

What the therapist didn't tell him is that the things he needs to feel considered or regarded are not okay. You're not allowed to want them. There's something wrong with you if you do.

But Jonah has become so convinced by the messages we receive from everywhere that we're "allowed boundaries" and that we are owed this and that from our partners, and that it's okay to operate from a place of trauma, that someone with as warped views as his is perceived on the spectrum of "normal".

That's not to say he isn't mostly receiving criticism, he is - but there is debate about how wrong he is and how he could have somehow turned these "needs" into healthy criteria one requires in a partner. That's when other people with this toxicity start to wonder how they can better "word" their wants with more therapy talk.

I remember a thread where I was aggrieved that an actively poly person was described as a "kid in a candy store" because his actions were very far removed from what made the OP comfortable. This is why I jump on that language. It's very easy to shame people for wanting something that distances them from you. Even in theory. That's why some happily partnered monogamous people can get upset just hearing that there are happy and stable poly couples. Just the thought that their partner could want something like that and not be punished for desiring it is painful to consider.

It's even easier to get someone who is reliant on our validation (as we all are to our partners to a degree) to feel really bad for wanting things that may hurt you. It's easy to get them to want to meet the criteria you set and feel inadequate when you move the goalposts so they fail even when they do get near.

It works on Sarah, she starts asking what of her "inappropriate" videos and photos she should delete. Once he has an inch, he quickly takes a mile. He wants more and more gone.

That's how it works. In no time, she would have been trapped serving him to her own detriment. Cut off from her social life, her professional life would suffer, and she would be reliant on him, financially and otherwise.

 

[MeeraReed]

I was on vacation from the internet so I had to look up the Jonah Hill stuff...

I think it's not just an issue with being able to weaponize the language of therapy, but that there are still plenty of cultural messages telling men that they shouldn't be okay with their hot girlfriends posting bikini pics on Instagram or spending time with male friends/colleagues.

I can't imagine being such a successful actor and still being that insecure with yourself! And then projecting that insecurity onto the girlfriend and making it her problem. Ridiculous.

 

[Magdlyn]

I was on vacation from the internet so I had to look up the Jonah Hill stuff...

I think it's not just an issue with being able to weaponize the language of therapy, but that there are still plenty of cultural messages telling men that they shouldn't be okay with their hot girlfriends posting bikini pics on Instagram or spending time with male friends/colleagues.

I can't imagine being such a successful actor and still being that insecure with yourself! And then projecting that insecurity onto the girlfriend and making it her problem. Ridiculous.

I'm on the internet, FB, Instagram, YouTube, every day and I wasn't up on this celebrity news. haha

Yeah, I mean back when I was younger and there was no internet, we all didn't have pix posted publically everywhere. But my stupid ex h did go through a couple of my photo albums behind my back and get rid of some pix of my exes. I didn't notice for years, but when I did, I was so pissed.

He also once told me a low-cut one-piece bathing suit I had wasn't flattering because of my small breasts, but I think he just didn't want other men looking at my modest cleavage. Ugh.

I have to say, some recent pix of this Jonah Hill, with long blondish hair and a matching speckled or streaky-color beard, make him look so different! I didn't recognize him at all.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I was on vacation from the internet so I had to look up the Jonah Hill stuff...

I think it's not just an issue with being able to weaponize the language of therapy, but that there are still plenty of cultural messages telling men that they shouldn't be okay with their hot girlfriends posting bikini pics on Instagram or spending time with male friends/colleagues.

I can't imagine being such a successful actor and still being that insecure with yourself! And then projecting that insecurity onto the girlfriend and making it her problem. Ridiculous.

I agree that they get those cultural messages and it helps them in carrying out what is essentially control and often abuse. They have society backing them up and saying that someone who dresses that way is a bad person too.

That happens with poly relationships too. We live in a mononormative society so it's very easy to use societal messages to restrict a non-monogamous partner in the same way. Society is going to tell you that your loyalty should be with your most established partner.

You can use therapy speak like "boundaries", "needs", "triggered", and "trauma" to create a non-monogamous situation which only benefits you and/or harms others. Mix that with some tears, financial expenditure and emotional blackmail and you could have yourself a long-term poly-looking relationship.

 

[Magdlyn]

I don't think that your relationships exactly oppose what I'm saying. For instance, you and Pixi didn't open your relationship to fix an incompatibility. You met presumably as two people independently seeking ENM or at least always having the understanding it would be open because at least one of you were poly.

Back to this: yes, when Pixi and I met we were both interested in polyamory. We are both pansexual, we both have lots of love to give, enough time, communication skills, money, etc., to devote to multiple r'ships.

When we first met we were very sexually compatible and had matching kinks, as well. I didn't "need" more sex than what I got from her. I just "wanted" the variety of sex (and people in general) after having been in a mono r'ship since the age of 19. But her NRE for me wore off after 3 months. Her sex drive had been super high as a teen and in her 20s (she told me many exciting stories), but by the time I met her she was 32 and just beginning HRT for body dysmorphia. The waning NRE, the androgen blockers and added estrogen, plus the antidepressants she also started taking, caused her sex drive to plummet. So within a short period of time, our mismatched libidos were a definite motivator for me to seek men with lots of testosterone fueling a sex drive that came close to my own. (I call myself non-binary partly because I feel like I have the sex drive of a young man, not a typical woman.)

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Reference post

I get really uncomfortable when people push the boundaries of others. I mean I'm sure we all do, but there's this socially acceptable way we do this in relationships that I really don't like. And I don't mean just romantic relationships either.

One of the most common ways is when someone thinks the boundary applies to everyone but them. For instance, a new mother might be insistent that nobody visits for the first few weeks - and she means nobody. Not even you, her best and oldest friend/sister/cousin/grandmother of the baby. She will explicitly tell you if she means except you, but other than that, if she says no visitors, she means nobody at all without invitation.

In the post I referenced, a woman is in a relationship with a married guy who seemingly has space to host, but doesn't very much. Throughout the comments, it becomes clearer and clearer that either he or his wife (but it sounds like him, to be honest) just aren't comfortable with their martial home being used for intimate dates with his other partners.

He needs to ask her to leave because he prefers I be there when she's not.

He had discomfort sharing space with us both at the same time, but she never had discomfort. She was always willing to meet me and is still willing to introduce her dates to him, but he has no interest.

The comments though. The OP and many of the commenter agree that he is treating her like a side piece by not hosting her at his home. There are even comments that it isn't "real poly" because he won't.

I know polyamory can be practiced in a lot of different ways, but this sometimes feels like they have an "open relationship" with a sprinkle of polyamory because there's feelings and love?

It definitely seems as though they are reluctant, maybe some feelings of jealousy or unease, which doesn’t bode well for a true poly relationship. It does sound more like an open relationship, in the fact that you feel like you’re a side piece(I know you didn’t say that, but I can only imagine that’s how you feel)

I've spoken before about gendered expectations with poly relationships and why married men might be less desirable to women. The OP speaks candidly about all the things does done to make her home comfortable for him to stay three days a week. She reiterates that he's never asked for this, she wanted to do it. She just feels it hasn't been reciprocated.

His comfort in my home is important to me because I want him to want to be there and not feel like a stranger. I keep snacks he likes, he has an area in my closet and drawer in the washroom. I also cook occasionally with groceries that I buy in advance. He's never asked for these things, but I also can't afford to go out for food all the time. And, when he didn't have a space for extra clothes and toiletries, he'd cut his visits short so he could go home for those things. Or, we needed to swing by his place for him to change before we went out.

So, I struggle buying there's reluctance on her part and if there is, it's not fair to me. Because her husband dating me is actually making it easier for her to host, when she has someone to host.

Some replied saying she is "owed" this reciprocation. Even that he owes her money for her expenditures.

How does this address the injustice of the current relationship?

He owes you money. Flat out say it like that.

He should buy the duvet and all your shared meals/groceries for at least the next year to catch up. And buy you what a tank of gas a month? Or more, depends on your driving. So 2 a month for the catch up year. And whatever things arise when you’re together. All him. All the time.
He's made it clear that he can't offer the same in return.

he will say "you're just stating facts I can't do anything about. you don't come over and I can't provide the comforts in my home that you provide me".

A few people are so sure that they're owed this and he's obliged to give it, they suggest she doesn't settle for what he's made clear he has available and she should keep asking for more.

The house has enough space. It doesn't sound like anything is stopping him from hosting other than inertia and habit.

Has he ever tried to have a date with you while his wife was in another part of the house? If she is fine with it and you are fine with it... I would ask him to at least try.

I don’t understand what you mean by he’s never been clear about why this is happening. The reason is because he doesn’t want to invite you over. I would push on that too if I were you. You deserve to be treated as well as a friend.

But I notice that we often tell unmarried partners dating married people (particularly but not always women) to give up, accept that the marriage is the priority etc. It’s the get your own primary school of advice. To me that sounds like we’re saying look what did you expect? You were always a side piece.

There are things that jump out at me:

* I don't think a guy would invite a married woman to spend half the week at his house AND expect her to contribute to the extent that some expected. Some said he should be paying a portion of the rent. Broadly speaking, I think women are more likely to intuitively contribute, often to their own detriment. But maybe that's our own stupidity, quite literally.

* Her need to create this comfortable alternative home for him seems like a female nesting drive. It makes her happy to create a warm home for her male lover. That's not something he has placed in her. That's a product of socialization in a patriarchal society. She’s been taught that relationships should be transactional, she plays the homemaker role and he plays the breadwinner and protector.

* His feelings matter. It doesn't matter if both women feel comfortable with being around each other. His feelings of discomfort matter too. I think it's easy to dismiss male feelings as just them feeling territorial or protective over their family and land. So if we can assure them that the women and children are safe, they should be fine. No, they also have a range of emotional responses that aren't just around their position as Hunters and protectors. He doesn't like it - respect that.

*There's the trope of polyamory meaning you owe all partners an equal relationship. He presents as poly, so these things have to be on the table or it's not poly. This is why I get indignant about unethical polyamory still being polyamory. Polyamory doesn't mean inherently good and non-toxic. It doesn't have to be essentially good to be poly.

* We tend to see women's actions with much less malice and potential for harm than we do men. I don't think people would encourage men to "push" their female partners past their comfort zone. I don't think people would speak as if she has an entitlement to more time in their home. I don't think they'd tell a male OP that his girlfriend owes him money for the things he chose to purchase to make his home comfortable.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

When and how to apply rules are a big part of what makes these rules okay or not. This is a life thing, not a poly thing.

We have a no shoes in the house rule. But if you run into our home fearing for your life and screaming and bleeding, we won't remind you to take your shoes off in the hallway. We'll be glad you came to us for help in your hour of need. We wouldn’t want to reinforce any fear or anxiety you have around speaking up about why you're hurt or who hurt you.

We wouldn’t want the first thing a victim to hear is "you reached out wrong".