Not really a blog

It's the difference between having polyamorous relationships and living the life and therefore seeing what actually occurs most often,
Click to expand...

I wrote this in a thread about the reality of applying some of the Poly 101 rules and regulations to real life situations.

I want to expand on this bit.

We often say that one of the hallmarks of an "ethical triad" AKA "not unicorn hunting" is that there isn't an agreement for anyone to break up with a triad member just because the other has. There aren't 2 people in a "package deal".

I agree..to an extent. It shouldn't be a rule, but the reality is that if you break up with one half of a couple, it can be pretty awkward to carry on seeing the other. It's usual to have space from an ex and if their place was the hosting spot because of everyone's restrictions, then it's hard to develop a new routine.

Even with the best will in the world, if you break up with one half of the couple, it puts a dampenner on the other relationship
That's what occurs most of the time in my experience.

Especially if it has been a "bad break up".

This is the same for a vee situation where a highly entangled relationship is in trouble. Most of the time, the Hinge is going to redirect their energy towards fixing that relationship either because they genuinely want that relationship more, or they can't afford to lose it (money, kids, housing, etc).

One thing that polyamory teaches you is that there really are plenty of fish in the sea. When your marriage gets in trouble, it's true that diverting your attention away from your newer partner may result in their loss AND the impasse you're at with your spouse might result in divorce. But if at that point you Still think polyamory is the way to go, you already know that there are People out there who want it, too.

Polyamory can teach you that the end of the relationship isn't a failure. You see it as part of your journey.

Nobody has to make a rule. It's just what will happen most of the time. I think it's a waste of time trying to "legislate" against it with a Poly Code of Conduct.

Instead, find people who are in a good place to explore polyamory. That will come with mistakes because you'll pick some wrong'uns. But mistakes aren't tragedies.

You're not going to overcome the attachment and history couples have built up by trying to plead a human rights case.
 
Last edited:
I have a few young people in my life. Relatives, friends children and the sort. A lot of them aren't that young any more. They're adults. They see me as the cool aunt being queer and poly and all so they tell me quite a bit about their own love lives. It's made me have a different perspective on relationships.

You see, I have that kind of biased love you have for kids that you've watched grow up. I know them as good. So even when they make choices that hurt people, or make choices too late, I know they didn't intend harm. So I suppose I see when they want to want something, or someone, but they just don't want it more than they want something else and that's why they keep making choices that hurt people they really do care about.

Some of it is because they want it all. They don't want to risk losing everything, or giving up options. Selfish reasons. And of course I tell them that it's selfish. But that thing of wanting to want something, often because you'd love to be able to give someone you care about what they want. But ultimately it will take too much of you, and some survival instinct just pulls you back from actually doing what you said you'd do.

It's inexcusable. But with these youngsters, I can see how they really can't help themselves. It's hard to watch. But it's a process.
 
Always remember that your partners are just lowly humans and humans are often assholes. Giving your partner the space to be a bit of an asshole at times means that your recognise their humanity.

That doesn't mean let your partner abuse you, but it does mean being charitable with your expectations of them.

For instance, NRE is a thing that most humans experience to some degree. Expecting your partner to be super excited and momentarily shift their focus to the "new shiny" is extremely helpful in not allowing what will be temporary NRE become this huge relationship ending obstacle.

That doesn't mean to say that you just let yourself or your partner abandon all responsibilities and commitments for NRE, but it means you give them some time to rebalance everything and enjoy those precious early days with a new person without having to navigate around someone who wants them to be like a robot.

Sometimes, a partner can be waiting for you to drop the ball by showing your humanity, so they can point and say "see, you can't do this fairly so I have to control it all". These people rarely end up having long term metamours and their need to monitor their partner's NRE only enhances every time the inevitable happens and a partner chooses their new partner (read: freedom) when essentially presented with an ultimatum. This reinforces their belief that they can't allow any deviation from What's Fair, even for NRE.

It's a vicious circle, and one only broken when we recognise our partners and metamours as rounded people.
 
My bf Aries is pretty new to poly. I'm his first poly relationship. One time after he came here right after a date with another, he had a bit of ED. Normally his libido is extremely high. I didn't get upset. I think it was more of a psychological adjustment than a physical one, and it hasn't happened again. There was no need to freak out about it.
 
Magdlyn said:
My bf Aries is pretty new to poly. I'm his first poly relationship. One time after he came here right after a date with another, he had a bit of ED. Normally his libido is extremely high. I didn't get upset. I think it was more of a psychological adjustment than a physical one, and it hasn't happened again. There was no need to freak out about it.
Click to expand...

I think it can be one of those things where when you're living it, it feels like such a long time to deal with it (your partner's NRE for a metamour), but when you look back on how long it really lasted after the fact, it was a very short time.

It is a bit like some parent's feel about the baby stage. It feels like such a long time that you are changing diapers, waking up several times a night etc, but by the time they are about 10, it's such a tiny fraction of their lives. By 20, it feels like all those exhausting days were merely a week. You even laugh at the genuinely terrible days you had or the silly things you did as new parents.

Lol my nephew recently had a baby. Him and his partner are both exhausted when baby doesn't sleep, but often wake him to check he's okay when he finally goes off! We're already laughing about it. They will too, one day.
 
When people started talking about polyamory on the Internet, views were quite simplistic. For example, a default for many attached couples would be that you can only partner with other attached people in a primary/secondary model.

As a queer woman, I found that idea very heteronormative so it never really made much sense to me.

Nowadays, in my current lifestyle, I guess I see the wisdom in it more than I did before. There is a core truth to it that seems relevant even when you look through the lens of the "modern relationships" we have nowadays.

If you're seeking a nesting partner and traditional relationship escalator, it's probably best not to restrict your availability through investing in relationships which won't offer that. Similarly, if you're not offering that opportunity for additional (or any) partners, it's probably best not to invest in a relationship with someone who is seeking that.

Polyamory doesn't eradicate that fundamental truth.

I will say this issue reduces in relevance as one ages, but it still crops up. People do find themselves in a position where they want to life-build again in their middle ages or even twilight years.
 
Do you want to discuss this or is this just musing? (That one was philosophical enough that it would make a good thread).
 
One major thing between the UK and the US are eating habits. Obesity and malnutrition are issues here, don't get me wrong - particularly where poverty is also an issue. But overall, people eat a lot differently.

First of all, there is the simple fact that a lot of chemicals and additives the US allow in food are banned in Europe.

Then there is the fact that people cook from scratch. But even when they don't cook from scratch, you can buy products that are essentially cooking from scratch. For instance, a pasta sauce that really just is tomatoes, a bit of salt, and herbs. No flavourings. No food coloring. Nothing like that. Nothing that makes it more red, or sweeter, or whatever.

Your shopping basket just looks different here because so many of the processed ready made food items that we have in America and just heat up and think of it as cooking simply don't exist here. If you want that dish, you need to buy the ingredients and cook it. There is no box that it comes in with a powdered sauce.

People generally don't eat out as much and if you are looking at improving your diet, you definitely would eat out a lot less unless it was at nice restaurant where you could have food prepared from scratch. There's a basic understanding that anything from the fast food industry is going to have a level of salt, sugar and other ingredients that you cannot quantify. There isn't healthy fast food. It's full of carbohydrates and other hidden nasties.

In America, eating as well as I eat in the UK would cost me a lot more money because they just don't make products financially affordable for the average person. Right now, I have probably five real, decent cheeses in my fridge. Things that in America, would be things that were only in my fridge because it's the holidays and I splashed out. Here, it's a regular part of my shopping and goes towards making the food from scratch that we do here.

The cost of living has changed things, but it's meant that people are more into cooking things they can't afford to eat out.

The way I'm phrasing this makes it seem like the poorest people are whipping themselves up gourmet meals and it's not that at all. I'm talking about people who are quite comfortable in the financial sense. Professionals. Middle classed. What your average not poor American eats compared to your average not poor Brit or European is very, very different. What you'll find in their fridge or shopping cart.

But then you have to look at health systems - while not all of Europe has socialised medicine, they do have state systems which provide more people state health care than America. It's in their interests to keep people healthier. In the UK particularly, the health issues related to poor diet cost the NHS so much money, that they'll heavily tax or ban substances or lifestyle choices that will result in poor health. The sugar tax for instance.

there are a lot of videos around at the moment exposing the truth about the American food industry and comparing it to Europe. You'll see the same product in both places but the American one has a long list of chemicals which the European one just does not have or is replaced with some more natural additive derived from organic products.

I'd advise all Americans to take advice about health promotion and diet from European or Canadian health promotion sources. I don't think you can trust the health or food industry enough in America to make safe, informed choices.
 
I was with a friend this evening, she has a grandson aged 8. He's been chatting away how only an 8 year old, middle class, British boy can do.

He told me all about the twins he knows from school and how he was very close to both of them and used to have play dates with them outside of school. However, he fell out with one of the twins (I think this twin is ND and "challenging"). And that naturally made it much harder for him to see the other twin since they share a home, toys, a room and they'd still have to eat together etc.

He didn't say but I imagine it's a little difficult for their parents to only drop one twin for a play date under these circumstances, so the play dates at her Grandson's are also infrequent.

It made me think of polyamorous triads. We always think of rules and agreements that couples might have which veto the other person. We rarely think about the fact it's just awkward to continue a relationship with one half of a couple when the other half is a recent ex.

Not saying it can't be done. I've seen it occur successfuly (triad to vee). But sometimes it's just too weird for that transition to occur.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
When people started talking about polyamory on the Internet, views were quite simplistic. For example, a default for many attached couples would be that you can only partner with other attached people in a primary/secondary model. As a queer woman, I found that idea very heteronormative so it never really made much sense to me.

Nowadays, in my current lifestyle, I guess I see the wisdom in it more than I did before. There is a core truth to it that seems relevant even when you look through the lens of the "modern relationships" we have nowadays.

If you're seeking a nesting partner and traditional relationship escalator, it's probably best not to restrict your availability through investing in relationships which won't offer that. Similarly, if you're not offering that opportunity for additional (or any) partners, it's probably best not to invest in a relationship with someone who is seeking that.

Polyamory doesn't eradicate that fundamental truth.

I will say this issue reduces in relevance as one ages, but it still crops up. People do find themselves in a position where they want to life-build again in their middle ages or even twilight years.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that a partnered poly person shouldn't date a single, or solo poly person (who currently doesn't have other partners) just because this single/solo person might have as a goal finding another poly person who wants a nesting arrangement? Isn't one of the beauties of poly the ability to seek people who do NOT want to get on the traditional r'ship escalator? And even if I person I am dating wants a nesting partner, since they are poly, wouldn't some of their other partners be those who do NOT want to nest and get married to someone?

In my case, when I met pixi, neither of us was actively seeking a nesting partner. It just worked out that we eventually realized we were right for each other to the point it sounded great to get a place together. In pixi's case, her bf is introverted, and it took him years before he wanted to fully nest with her. At this point, she does spend half the week with him. She has her own room, is welcome to help with home decoration, has met his extende family, etc., etc. She nests with both him and me. Having her at his place part time is plenty for her bf, since he likes his alone time. I appreciate my time with both my partners (one at a time), as well as the time I get to myself.

My other partner Aries lives with his brother, 2 adult cousins and an aunt. But he spends half the week here at my house, when pixi is away at her bf's. He is dating one other woman who is married and doesn't want him to live with her. He is also dating another woman who has 3 subs and another bf, plus him, and splits her time between all of them.

Aries might want a full-time nesting partner some day. But not right now. He's young yet, younger than me. I will probably pass on long before he does. Maybe even before I die, he will meet a poly, or poly-friendly woman who wants to nest with him.

What is wrong with our set-up? I think it's pretty common in poly practice.
 
Nothing's wrong with your set up, Mags, because everyone involved is happy with it. Aries is not looking for a nesting partner right now.

In general, though, I think there's still a risk that someone (Apple) who is in good faith operating on a non-nesting poly relationship with another someone (Banana) could either find themselves dumped or dramatically de-escalated if (Banana) meets a new someone (Carrot) and moves into nesting with them because that was (Banana's) deep desire all along. Apple discovers they were just a placeholder because Banana actually wants a more traditional look relationship. Poor Apple. But as Seasoned was saying, Apple could have chosen to not be involved with someone who had the intention of meeting a nesting partner.

From Banana's position, they might not have had the chance to meet/get close to Carrot enough to even discuss nesting because they were dating Apple. Poor Banana. But again, their choices put them in that position, and they could have made choices that better aligned with their nesting desires.

Best case scenario, Carrot is great at poly already and together they design design a nesting relationship that intentionally enables other relationships to thrive through things such as having own bedrooms and such. But I think this would be the minority of new nesting relationships, most people would model a new nesting relationship off a traditional set up.

So Apple and Banana end up hurt because Banana wants to nest with Carrot. Carrot might be new to poly, or comfortable thinking of themselves as poly by orientation but still haven't navigated the practicalities along the way. Carrot might find it challenging having a meta with more longevity of relationship while they are trying to nest (shall we call it King of the Castle syndrome? Or Lady of the House syndrome? Either way, it's about power, real or perceived.) This would likely cause strain all around - goodness knows we've seen so many different growing pains around living together in the help section...
 
Evie said:
Nothing's wrong with your set up, Mags, because everyone involved is happy with it. Aries is not looking for a nesting partner right now.

In general, though, I think there's still a risk that someone (Apple) who is in good faith operating on a non-nesting poly relationship with another someone (Banana) could either find themselves dumped or dramatically de-escalated if (Banana) meets a new someone (Carrot) and moves into nesting with them because that was (Banana's) deep desire all along. Apple discovers they were just a placeholder because Banana actually wants a more traditional look relationship. Poor Apple. But as Seasoned was saying, Apple could have chosen to not be involved with someone who had the intention of meeting a nesting partner.

From Banana's position, they might not have had the chance to meet/get close to Carrot enough to even discuss nesting because they were dating Apple. Poor Banana. But again, their choices put them in that position, and they could have made choices that better aligned with their nesting desires.

Best case scenario, Carrot is great at poly already and together they design design a nesting relationship that intentionally enables other relationships to thrive through things such as having own bedrooms and such. But I think this would be the minority of new nesting relationships, most people would model a new nesting relationship off a traditional set up.

So Apple and Banana end up hurt because Banana wants to nest with Carrot. Carrot might be new to poly, or comfortable thinking of themselves as poly by orientation but still haven't navigated the practicalities along the way. Carrot might find it challenging having a meta with more longevity of relationship while they are trying to nest (shall we call it King of the Castle syndrome? Or Lady of the House syndrome? Either way, it's about power, real or perceived.) This would likely cause strain all around - goodness knows we've seen so many different growing pains around living together in the help section...
Click to expand...

Yes exactly.

It's like an old adage that rings true.
 
Oh. okay. In my life, I have dated two guys who were single, claimed they were newly poly, didn't want to be in a traditional relationship, but ended up leaving me anyway for other women who were monogamous and wanted a full time bf. One of them even told me he never wanted kids, but partnered up with a single mom! I guess these guys just thought they were poly when they were single and dating around for a while. But they didn't seem to be aware they weren't poly. I guess it was a surprise to me and them both when they left me for mono women.

See, I didn't choose to date someone who really wanted a nesting partner. I was deceived. It was pretty hurtful.
 
Magdlyn said:
Oh. okay. In my life, I have dated two guys who were single, claimed they were newly poly, didn't want to be in a traditional relationship, but ended up leaving me anyway for other women who were monogamous and wanted a full time bf. One of them even told me he never wanted kids, but partnered up with a single mom! I guess these guys just thought they were poly when they were single and dating around for a while. But they didn't seem to be aware they weren't poly. I guess it was a surprise to me and them both when they left me for mono women.

See, I didn't choose to date someone who really wanted a nesting partner. I was deceived. It was pretty hurtful.
Click to expand...

Yeah that happens. Especially in people aged under 50. They don't really know what they want and in the least patronising way, they get caught up in fads that they think make them edgy. At 25, she was a childfree solopoly vegan who thought having biological kids was unethical due to climate change. At 40, she's on her second set of IVF twins with her monogamous husband.

Still, as I said in my first post about this, age isn't a guarantee by any means. This was written about a friend who has had some relationship woes of late, and I think they just won't acknowledge that they do indeed desire the stability of a nesting or anchor relationship and this pattern that is occurring is because they are matching with people who just can't offer that because they've got other commitments. Personally I think they are best off looking for unpartnered people given what they seem to need (and maybe even outside of poly labelled people but that's another post).
 
There is a thread on reddit now talking about classism and polyamory. A guy there has offered the opinion that if you're broke, you don't have the luxury of thinking about dating more than you are already. People have downvoted him heavily...

But....

The shared values in that subreddit often gatekeep People from calling themselves polyamorous unless they can offer their partners a certain level of autonomy and progression within the relationship. You HAVE to have sleepovers. You HAVE to host. You HAVE to be able to do do vacations. If you cannot do these things, then you're seen as not free enough to be polyamorous. "Just" some other form of ethical non-monogamy which is absolutely seen as lesser than polyamory.

So, really, despite their misgivings with this guy's views, they essentially agree. You shouldn't be "poly dating" or using a poly label unless you have the means to facilitate multiple relationships in a practical way. A way that allows the poly outsider to view your relationship structure, and imagine themselves to be able to feel loved and fulfilled by the relationship you could theoretically offer them.

That essentially means only those of us who have spare rooms, hotel money, travel money, date money, and limited need for accessibility or medical care can truly be poly. The ones who could offer what they collectively see as enough progression and commitment to qualify as polyamorous.

It's funny because the Thread was started by a user who wanted somewhere else they could discuss class and polyamory, because they obviously didn't see the subreddit as the place to do it. I see why. The cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy is as my partner would say, "wild".
 
I hope it's okay if I reply to this.
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
There is a thread on reddit now talking about classism and polyamory. A guy there has offered the opinion that if you're broke, you don't have the luxury of thinking about dating more than you are already. People have downvoted him heavily...
...
Click to expand...
I just wanted to say that I couldn't agree more with what you said!

I'm behind on my reading list, so I'm sure I'll eventually hit that poly thread at some point. I know how that subreddit can be - I've talked about it before stating (and half joking) that if they decided to try and move the polyamory-label to NOT include straight-cis-married-hetero-men, that I would not be surprised - and after all the things they write, I probably would acquiesce, as well.

Did anyone make any good comment exposing the hypocrisy? I mean ... there are about 20 - 50 users who comment a LOT. Surely, that means they read other comments? Like, how could they be so obtuse?
 
TavMac said:
Like, how could they be so obtuse?
Click to expand...
I think they don't connect the two. When they say that someone has to be able to offer all this space for a new relationship to grow, they don't consider that having that space is a privilege on its own.

You need work that is flexible, well paid and enjoyable so as not to burn you out.

You need a home where you can accommodate your partners to their comfort level.

You need the money and time off of work and other commitments to offer everyone vacations and the like.

You need the familial and/or friendship network to keep your life balanced and have emotional support outside of your relationships. That will take time and money to facilitate too.

This is just to achieve their ethical poly standard. Less than that, you're half assing and not really poly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top