Polyamory more or less stable than monogamy?
- Thread starter Knickers
- Start date
Ravenscroft
Banned
I know, I know! 
Actually, it made me think of two tunes: Dream Police (Cheap Trick) & Who Are the Brain Police? (Mothers of Invention).
In a way, though, I guess by being active here we ALL are shaping polyamory, & how we talk about it, & thus how others think about it.
And no cost for uniforms.
Actually, it made me think of two tunes: Dream Police (Cheap Trick) & Who Are the Brain Police? (Mothers of Invention).
In a way, though, I guess by being active here we ALL are shaping polyamory, & how we talk about it, & thus how others think about it.
And no cost for uniforms.
Hi Knickers,
Your first post here poses a difficult question. For example, polyamory comes in many shapes and sizes, and some tend to be more stable than others. And there is the question of what defines success and stability in a relationship. I suppose whichever model (e.g. monogamy/polyamory) has the more moving parts will tend to be less stable. Which would be poly, right?
In any case, there's such a vast variety of relationships out there, any one relationship will have to be judged on its own merits, without regard about general statistics. After all, I reckon that the difference (more:less stable) is like 60/40. Not all that much.
That's my point of view anyway.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
Your first post here poses a difficult question. For example, polyamory comes in many shapes and sizes, and some tend to be more stable than others. And there is the question of what defines success and stability in a relationship. I suppose whichever model (e.g. monogamy/polyamory) has the more moving parts will tend to be less stable. Which would be poly, right?
In any case, there's such a vast variety of relationships out there, any one relationship will have to be judged on its own merits, without regard about general statistics. After all, I reckon that the difference (more:less stable) is like 60/40. Not all that much.
That's my point of view anyway.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
Thanks Kevin for your point of view. I think my question was too broad for any kind of black and white answer and I think the other folks who have responded are right in that it totally depends on each relationship/couple. I guess I was just thinking about it in terms of all the "monogamous" couples who are cheating and all the moving parts in those relationships that are just unknown to the other partner and could very well lead to the demise of the relationship VS the polyamorous couple with all the moving parts that everyone is in full knowledge of and are consenting to. Of course, there are couples who are much better at monogamy than we were, and for that they are probably much more stable.
MrFarFromRight
Banned
@ nycindie: I was quite surprised to read this:
It's true that one or two people have shared stories about problems of their own (in poly and mono relationships), but that seems (to me) to be a relevant response to the questions posed in the OP. It's also true that a few (myself included) have pointed out to possible problems for the OP. The ONLY comment that (it seems to me) fits the bill of "say[ing] that the OP's marriage is in trouble" is
[Edited, after a few hours' sleep, to add:] It's very common for someone inside an unhealthy/problematic/sticky/dangerous situation [which I am NOT saying is Knickers' case] to be too close to the problem to see it clearly. Sometimes they are so used to an unhealthy/etc relationship to realise that it is one. For a fellow member to even suspect that something unhealthy/etc. is going on /on-going and not point that out seems (to me) to be [one] height of irresponsibility. Of course, we're not God and might have misread the situation. And perhaps our comments don't help the OP, but they might be of some help to other readers. I would not call that "doomsaying", but "caring for our fellow members".
As to your attack on learner... (Well, it sounded to me like an attack. Evidently it sounded to learner like an attack [I caught her one-line reply to you before she edited it (removing that one line), and even the edited version implies that it felt like an attack]): or a - or even a - might have revealed that you were only joking. Rolling your eyes rolleyes is (among other things) a sign of exasperation: it could be taken to mean "can you believe this learner person?! Thinking she can lay down the law about what poly is all about!" Especially considering your following paragraph, that's the buzz that I (and apparently learner) got off your "joke".
I suppose that if learner had written "It seems to me that the whole point of poly", "For me, the whole point of poly", or "IMHO, the whole point of poly", you might have written that paragraph, but you wouldn't have made the remark about her thinking that she was the poly police.
This forum is FULL of people expressing their opinions. If we had to begin every sentence with "IMHO", "It seems to me that", or "For me," our comments might be more understandable, but the forum might become a lot clumsier.
Do you really think that "so many responses here [have been] turning things around to say that the OP's marriage is in trouble"??? Or that they seem to be doing so? I was so surprised that I went over the whole thread, to check this out.
It's true that one or two people have shared stories about problems of their own (in poly and mono relationships), but that seems (to me) to be a relevant response to the questions posed in the OP. It's also true that a few (myself included) have pointed out to possible problems for the OP. The ONLY comment that (it seems to me) fits the bill of "say[ing] that the OP's marriage is in trouble" is
Hardly "so many".
[Edited, after a few hours' sleep, to add:] It's very common for someone inside an unhealthy/problematic/sticky/dangerous situation [which I am NOT saying is Knickers' case] to be too close to the problem to see it clearly. Sometimes they are so used to an unhealthy/etc relationship to realise that it is one. For a fellow member to even suspect that something unhealthy/etc. is going on /on-going and not point that out seems (to me) to be [one] height of irresponsibility. Of course, we're not God and might have misread the situation. And perhaps our comments don't help the OP, but they might be of some help to other readers. I would not call that "doomsaying", but "caring for our fellow members".
As to your attack on learner... (Well, it sounded to me like an attack. Evidently it sounded to learner like an attack [I caught her one-line reply to you before she edited it (removing that one line), and even the edited version implies that it felt like an attack]):
If this was "a joke", I suggest that you choose your smilies with more care. AOh, really? Are you the poly police?
or a - or even a - might have revealed that you were only joking. Rolling your eyes rolleyes is (among other things) a sign of exasperation: it could be taken to mean "can you believe this learner person?! Thinking she can lay down the law about what poly is all about!" Especially considering your following paragraph, that's the buzz that I (and apparently learner) got off your "joke".I suppose that if learner had written "It seems to me that the whole point of poly", "For me, the whole point of poly", or "IMHO, the whole point of poly", you might have written that paragraph, but you wouldn't have made the remark about her thinking that she was the poly police.
This forum is FULL of people expressing their opinions. If we had to begin every sentence with "IMHO", "It seems to me that", or "For me," our comments might be more understandable, but the forum might become a lot clumsier.
Last edited:
Spork
Active member
So Zen and I met up with some 'nilla friends of his last night for dinner. I mentioned that I'd been poly for the last year, and the lady (who knows about our involvement in the BDSM lifestyle but not really my polyamory maybe?) asked me some questions, seemed she was looking for some absolutes on how this poly thing works. She said she figured it had to be pretty casual, right?
Hoo boy, here we go.
I had to think on the fly due to the pace of the conversation, what point can I make fairly QUICKLY (not a strong suit of mine anyways, as anyone here knows by my novel-length posts)...that will sum this up?
I ended up saying, "Look. Mainly, it's putting aside the social rules of relationships in favor of writing our own scripts. It's figuring out and then trying to do what works for us..." I told her that most of the longest of long term poly configurations I have personally seen in the communities I'm part of ("stable" if you will) are MMF triads where the men are more or less brotherly to each other. Well bonded anyhow, whether they are sexually intimate or not. I also explained that for me, being involved in BDSM and polyamory, and being part of communities for both, has been more effective at teaching me things about myself, my deep wiring and programming, my needs, and how to relate to others, than probably a decade of expensive therapy could have.
So my reactions to this post, conceptually...
"Stable." Is long term with no additions or subtractions what is meant by "stable?" Define "stable" for me? Lack of change? What if change is good? I don't consider it a success or a win if a couple stays together long past the point that they probably shouldn't, if one or both is unhappy and solutions either are not being worked on, or are impossible. I don't like the culturally assumed thing where the goal is more important than the journey and all that seems to matter is, "we stuck it out until one of us died." Why is that the goal, anyways? Seems a mono-normative assumption. My goal is quality over longevity, with a goal of no hostility. So a perfect relationship is one where we share great stuff, but if it reaches a point where needs are not met and things are not great, and if solutions cannot be found and it comes right down to incompatibility...then instead of nuking the relationship and weeping in the fallout of drama and misery...let's redefine. Let's reshape it to something that can go on and keep working out. Maybe be friends instead. Or casual lovers. Or whatever. However, I do recognize that this only seems to work among parties that are equally ready to make change. If one is clinging to expectations or felt entitled to something and cheated of it, perhaps, then this might not work out.
But to me the ultimate success is when a romantic relationship can transition to a loving friendship. The main difficulty I've had with this in the past, when my partners were monofolk, was that they would then find a new girlfriend, who would hate me and feel threatened by me and want me to stay away from their guy. Because I'm the ex, and we can't still be friends, we need to be "over" each other. Ugh. Hate that. I can really truly be friends with my exes, seriously. It does NOT mean I'm trying to get back with them.
And another reaction point to the OP: I have heard SO DAMN MANY TIMES stories where the guy thinks that "just sex no feelings" is OK for some reason. Now this ain't an absolute, some women can do this and feel comfortable with it. But I feel more often than not, it's the guy who thinks that it's fine if they pork other partners but not to feel things for them. That pisses me off. Like I don't do this, but I'm about to start yelling about Patriarchy over here. It's a holdover of the notion that a guy is doing it right if he bangs loads of broads and then finds "the one" and makes her his and protects and provides for the rest of his days. Only she is worthy of his feels, the rest just got his D. How is it in any way safer for people to just have "meaningless sex" with others...when you could catch a disease? Or get pregnant? Nobody ever got AIDS from feelings. I've had close friends for whom I have felt deep love, but had no sex, and they were not a threat to my marriage. So at a knee-jerk level, that is utterly absurd to me.
But I can say one thing. If a marriage has reached the point where both are just auto-piloting along taking each other for granted and not trying to keep the love strong, and a new partner enters the scene and feelings happen...then yeah, I'd say there could be some unfavorable comparisons that might lead to trouble for the original couple. That's why "relationship broken; add more people" is a terrible idea. But it begs the question of, what is REALLY the problem here? Is it polyamory in general, or is it the fact that many of us stop putting as much effort into an existing longterm relationship and put more effort into a new thing?
As for drama, that really depends on the people. Some folks are drama-llama-ding-dongs, and some are not so much. Where there be humans, there will be some sort of drama, but not all has to be the sky-is-falling, hand-to-forehead, doom and crisis kind of thing. I personally don't consider humans making human stories, doing human stuff, to be "horror, drama, avoid at all costs."
TL;DR conclusion: I do think there's more potential for human "stuff" and change and so on, with more humans in the picture. But I don't think that means poly "works" or "doesn't work" and I question words like "stable" as many use to "prove it doesn't work." Monogamy, by many standards, "doesn't work." But I don't tell people it's a bad idea.
Hoo boy, here we go.
I had to think on the fly due to the pace of the conversation, what point can I make fairly QUICKLY (not a strong suit of mine anyways, as anyone here knows by my novel-length posts)...that will sum this up?
I ended up saying, "Look. Mainly, it's putting aside the social rules of relationships in favor of writing our own scripts. It's figuring out and then trying to do what works for us..." I told her that most of the longest of long term poly configurations I have personally seen in the communities I'm part of ("stable" if you will) are MMF triads where the men are more or less brotherly to each other. Well bonded anyhow, whether they are sexually intimate or not. I also explained that for me, being involved in BDSM and polyamory, and being part of communities for both, has been more effective at teaching me things about myself, my deep wiring and programming, my needs, and how to relate to others, than probably a decade of expensive therapy could have.
So my reactions to this post, conceptually...
"Stable." Is long term with no additions or subtractions what is meant by "stable?" Define "stable" for me? Lack of change? What if change is good? I don't consider it a success or a win if a couple stays together long past the point that they probably shouldn't, if one or both is unhappy and solutions either are not being worked on, or are impossible. I don't like the culturally assumed thing where the goal is more important than the journey and all that seems to matter is, "we stuck it out until one of us died." Why is that the goal, anyways? Seems a mono-normative assumption. My goal is quality over longevity, with a goal of no hostility. So a perfect relationship is one where we share great stuff, but if it reaches a point where needs are not met and things are not great, and if solutions cannot be found and it comes right down to incompatibility...then instead of nuking the relationship and weeping in the fallout of drama and misery...let's redefine. Let's reshape it to something that can go on and keep working out. Maybe be friends instead. Or casual lovers. Or whatever. However, I do recognize that this only seems to work among parties that are equally ready to make change. If one is clinging to expectations or felt entitled to something and cheated of it, perhaps, then this might not work out.
But to me the ultimate success is when a romantic relationship can transition to a loving friendship. The main difficulty I've had with this in the past, when my partners were monofolk, was that they would then find a new girlfriend, who would hate me and feel threatened by me and want me to stay away from their guy. Because I'm the ex, and we can't still be friends, we need to be "over" each other. Ugh. Hate that. I can really truly be friends with my exes, seriously. It does NOT mean I'm trying to get back with them.
And another reaction point to the OP: I have heard SO DAMN MANY TIMES stories where the guy thinks that "just sex no feelings" is OK for some reason. Now this ain't an absolute, some women can do this and feel comfortable with it. But I feel more often than not, it's the guy who thinks that it's fine if they pork other partners but not to feel things for them. That pisses me off. Like I don't do this, but I'm about to start yelling about Patriarchy over here. It's a holdover of the notion that a guy is doing it right if he bangs loads of broads and then finds "the one" and makes her his and protects and provides for the rest of his days. Only she is worthy of his feels, the rest just got his D. How is it in any way safer for people to just have "meaningless sex" with others...when you could catch a disease? Or get pregnant? Nobody ever got AIDS from feelings. I've had close friends for whom I have felt deep love, but had no sex, and they were not a threat to my marriage. So at a knee-jerk level, that is utterly absurd to me.
But I can say one thing. If a marriage has reached the point where both are just auto-piloting along taking each other for granted and not trying to keep the love strong, and a new partner enters the scene and feelings happen...then yeah, I'd say there could be some unfavorable comparisons that might lead to trouble for the original couple. That's why "relationship broken; add more people" is a terrible idea. But it begs the question of, what is REALLY the problem here? Is it polyamory in general, or is it the fact that many of us stop putting as much effort into an existing longterm relationship and put more effort into a new thing?
As for drama, that really depends on the people. Some folks are drama-llama-ding-dongs, and some are not so much. Where there be humans, there will be some sort of drama, but not all has to be the sky-is-falling, hand-to-forehead, doom and crisis kind of thing. I personally don't consider humans making human stories, doing human stuff, to be "horror, drama, avoid at all costs."
TL;DR conclusion: I do think there's more potential for human "stuff" and change and so on, with more humans in the picture. But I don't think that means poly "works" or "doesn't work" and I question words like "stable" as many use to "prove it doesn't work." Monogamy, by many standards, "doesn't work." But I don't tell people it's a bad idea.
MrFarFromRight
Banned
To anyone who skims these threads, only reading the very short posts, take the time to read the whole of Spork's. Novel length, maybe, but A+ all through:
I like what you said, thanks! Some very good points!
FallenAngelina
Well-known member
Speaking from the half-century mark of life, I see long term marriages all around me that are on auto-pilot, not because nobody is trying, but becasue it's an awfully tall order to keep romance and vibrancy in a 30+ year relationship. Societal expectations go a very long way with keeping these monogamous unions together. I agree that decades long monogamy can barely be held up as "working" and "stable" when the partners forego others mostly because of shame and fear.
PurpleSun
New member
It's not the relationship style...
It's the individuals involved. Some people are simply not wired to be monogamous, but society tells us that it's the right way to do things. It's what you do - you grow up, you go to college, you get married, you have kids. Any deviation from that is seen as "wrong" by much of society, and therefore people often do it whether they want to or not. They even trick themselves into doing it.
I know plenty of people who are in monogamous marriages and are happy as clams, and I also know people who stayed married because they felt they had to, or for their kids, or financial reasons, and other reasons that have nothing to do with love and/or happiness.
At the end of the day, I personally believe the "till death do us part" stuff is a trap for many people, hence the high rates of infidelity and divorce. You can love someone all day long, but it doesn't mean that they are the right person for you.
Further, people grow and change throughout life, by nature. Sometimes that growth and change happens in different directions. It's okay to work on things, but when it becomes clear that people are no longer compatible, the best thing to do is end the relationship. This is with ANY relationship style. Open, poly, mono, or anything in between.
It's the individuals involved. Some people are simply not wired to be monogamous, but society tells us that it's the right way to do things. It's what you do - you grow up, you go to college, you get married, you have kids. Any deviation from that is seen as "wrong" by much of society, and therefore people often do it whether they want to or not. They even trick themselves into doing it.
I know plenty of people who are in monogamous marriages and are happy as clams, and I also know people who stayed married because they felt they had to, or for their kids, or financial reasons, and other reasons that have nothing to do with love and/or happiness.
At the end of the day, I personally believe the "till death do us part" stuff is a trap for many people, hence the high rates of infidelity and divorce. You can love someone all day long, but it doesn't mean that they are the right person for you.
Further, people grow and change throughout life, by nature. Sometimes that growth and change happens in different directions. It's okay to work on things, but when it becomes clear that people are no longer compatible, the best thing to do is end the relationship. This is with ANY relationship style. Open, poly, mono, or anything in between.
PurpleSun
New member
I put my parents in this category, sadly. This is especially true since my father had his stroke. He's fine now, but there's definitely some cognitive stuff going on. He drives and all, but often talking to him is like talking to a little kid. Further, couple that with the fact that he only has an 11th grade education and was already ignorant on many issues, and it's just frustrating to be around him. My mom spends all of her time taking him to doctor's appointments because he can't understand instructions, and she has to run the household and take care of any official business.
Even prior to this, they had no business being married for as long as they were. He was a drunken gambling addict and when we were kids we almost lost our house multiple times because he'd put entire paychecks into video poker machines. My greatest hope growing up was that my mother would leave him.
They've been on autopilot for almost the entire 30+ year marriage, and now my mom isn't even a wife, she's just a caretaker who's stuck in a marriage that is literally making her waste away. She feels obligated to care for him because he can't care for himself, and thinks that people will think she left him due to his disabilities, rather than because the marriage does not work.
To me, when couples do this, it's truly a shameful waste of one's life. There's no shame in admitting that something just doesn't work anymore - or that maybe it never did in the first place.
MrFarFromRight
Banned
Two excellent posts from PurpleSun following one from FallenAngelina.
In my parents' case, it wasn't that they weren't trying. My father was actually [psychologically] abusive to my mother, repeatedly calling her (valedictorian of her high-school class) stupid in front of their children, laughing at her fears of his reckless driving (taking his hands off the steering wheel to scare her and - I suppose - to thrill us children, though I suspect that his biggest thrill was frightening her and getting her to plead with him to put his hands back on the wheel*) after he had already smashed up a car that he'd borrowed from his brother (and possibly even after another accident [his fault: he was on the wrong side of the road right before a curve] that put a passenger in the other car into a wheelchair and turned my mother's face into that of the Bride of Frankenstein [windscreens weren't made of safety glass back then]).
[Colouring, not necessary to the point I'm making (but illustrative of the fact that my mother's earlier fears were't those of a "silly scaredy-cat"): He went on to have 3 more accidents, all of them with her as a passenger. (I was a passenger in only one of them - the only one where he wasn't 100% to blame, though also not even 45% blameless.) After the 4th (the 1st to occur after I had reached adulthood - and which broke 2 of her ribs), I advised her never to get into a car with him again. I told him that if he ever had another serious accident with her in the car, I was never going to speak to him again. His 5th accident - car totalled, no serious injuries - he finally gave up driving. (By that time he was in his late 70s, and to keep driving would have meant having to buy another car.)]
Why did they never divorce? If they had done so, he would have lost his livelihood. (He was a preacher** and - in his church - divorced preachers were a no-no.) And she would have been left with [depending on which point they divorced] up to 9 children on her hands (and no driver's permit).
So ['til death did them part] they passed their 60th wedding anniversary: to all the world [perhaps except for me] a model of a successful marriage, a "stable" (mono) relationship.
* He never took his hands off of the wheel as far as power-structure in their relationship went... and she never asked him to.
** This man had the gall to give matrimonial advice to engaged couples and newly-weds. I suspect that he got off on explaining sexual matters to pretty young things.
In my parents' case, it wasn't that they weren't trying. My father was actually [psychologically] abusive to my mother, repeatedly calling her (valedictorian of her high-school class) stupid in front of their children, laughing at her fears of his reckless driving (taking his hands off the steering wheel to scare her and - I suppose - to thrill us children, though I suspect that his biggest thrill was frightening her and getting her to plead with him to put his hands back on the wheel*) after he had already smashed up a car that he'd borrowed from his brother (and possibly even after another accident [his fault: he was on the wrong side of the road right before a curve] that put a passenger in the other car into a wheelchair and turned my mother's face into that of the Bride of Frankenstein [windscreens weren't made of safety glass back then]).
[Colouring, not necessary to the point I'm making (but illustrative of the fact that my mother's earlier fears were't those of a "silly scaredy-cat"): He went on to have 3 more accidents, all of them with her as a passenger. (I was a passenger in only one of them - the only one where he wasn't 100% to blame, though also not even 45% blameless.) After the 4th (the 1st to occur after I had reached adulthood - and which broke 2 of her ribs), I advised her never to get into a car with him again. I told him that if he ever had another serious accident with her in the car, I was never going to speak to him again. His 5th accident - car totalled, no serious injuries - he finally gave up driving. (By that time he was in his late 70s, and to keep driving would have meant having to buy another car.)]
Why did they never divorce? If they had done so, he would have lost his livelihood. (He was a preacher** and - in his church - divorced preachers were a no-no.) And she would have been left with [depending on which point they divorced] up to 9 children on her hands (and no driver's permit).
So ['til death did them part] they passed their 60th wedding anniversary: to all the world [perhaps except for me] a model of a successful marriage, a "stable" (mono) relationship.
* He never took his hands off of the wheel as far as power-structure in their relationship went... and she never asked him to.
** This man had the gall to give matrimonial advice to engaged couples and newly-weds. I suspect that he got off on explaining sexual matters to pretty young things.
PurpleSun
New member
Thank you, MrFarFromRight. This is a very sad story, but often people live the only way they know how to live, even if it leaves them miserable. Admittedly, I feel much sorrier for your mother than your father. He sounds like a typical misogynistic religious type - women are for his pleasure, for child bearing and keeping house, and deserving of no respect. Sad that people still think that way.
Spork
Active member
My great grandma (primary caregiver) died when I was 5.
After that everyone was busy adults finding a moment here or there for me.
My little brothers were born when I was 9 and 13, and I cared for them a LOT, Mom was flakey, depressive, oversleeping, overworked, overstressed...I get it, because I feel that way sometimes myself.
My parents divorced when I was 11, Dad was gone a lot, didn't want to be home or around Mom. He liked to drink, he drove drunk, he had affairs. When he remarried, it was the woman he'd been sleeping with just before the divorce.
Mom married and then immediately annulled with a guy her parents wanted her to marry after the divorce. Rich, but she found him repulsive (in a "your kink is NOT my kink" kind of way.) She had a steamy love affair with a Portuguese construction worker, then married a much younger Mexican guy, whose friend assaulted me when I was 14. Eventually divorced him, too.
My grandparents on Mom's side stayed together until Grandma died. They made each other miserable...he was an abusive drunk when they were younger, a blustering arsehole later on, and she was childish and manipulative. They slept apart for the last couple of decades I think.
Grandparents on Dad's side, beat the crap out of each other regularly. Had a bunch of kids. Lived poor in the North Carolina tobacco lands. But Grandma was a hell of a cook, though. Could make pretty much anything taste pretty good, and in fact I shudder a bit to think of some of the ingredients in some of the southern cookin' I ate when I was a kid.
But basically "until death do us part" was something that phased out pretty much with my grandparents' generation, in my eyes, and watching them, that model of marriage was not anything I'd care to emulate. A lot more examples and reinforcements into my pattern of belief that nothing really lasts forever. You might get a good run, but the only thing that comes of it when you promise "forever" to someone, is that you'll probably try to resuscitate a dead marriage for more years than you ought, wasting time you could be living much more happily apart. Which is, I guess, what I did with my ex.
Though in all honesty, being the pragmatist that I am, I do think some things are more important than one's own happiness. I had a sort of manufactured domestic harmony for a long time, though I was doing it for the kids. I think they had a reasonably happy early childhood. If I could point to one specific point where I wish I'd severed my ties and walked, it would be right after we actually broke up, in early 2015. I hung around in his house trying to help him afford life until he got his act together, and ran up my credit cards pretty bad in the process (because he wasn't working) and now I'm getting stuck with a lot of debt, that I wouldn't have had, if I'd just split and forced him to get a job then and there. Not to mention how many hours of providing him with "garage therapy" I might have spared myself...
But now my poly quad that I've been in for the last year is dissolving, it seems, but I don't think that points to "instability." From my POV, it just wasn't working as well, and unlike in a marriage, I didn't feel that I should shut up about my needs that weren't being met and my issues, and just try to "make it work" just...because. It was my feeling that I should try to express myself somehow even if it was hard, and if it's time to withdraw, attempt to do it gracefully. I may or may not have succeeded in that. But I don't think we exploded in a storm of drama and hissyfits, and my kids weren't really affected much.
(Also, I stand corrected on a point made in an earlier post, what I meant to say is that the most "stable" as in longterm functioning, poly configs I've seen have been MMF -or- MFM, two men and a woman, operating as a triad -or- a V. The main reason I say this is to state that what many think of as the poly default, multiple women, isn't always necessarily the most harmonious longterm from what I have seen.)
After that everyone was busy adults finding a moment here or there for me.
My little brothers were born when I was 9 and 13, and I cared for them a LOT, Mom was flakey, depressive, oversleeping, overworked, overstressed...I get it, because I feel that way sometimes myself.
My parents divorced when I was 11, Dad was gone a lot, didn't want to be home or around Mom. He liked to drink, he drove drunk, he had affairs. When he remarried, it was the woman he'd been sleeping with just before the divorce.
Mom married and then immediately annulled with a guy her parents wanted her to marry after the divorce. Rich, but she found him repulsive (in a "your kink is NOT my kink" kind of way.) She had a steamy love affair with a Portuguese construction worker, then married a much younger Mexican guy, whose friend assaulted me when I was 14. Eventually divorced him, too.
My grandparents on Mom's side stayed together until Grandma died. They made each other miserable...he was an abusive drunk when they were younger, a blustering arsehole later on, and she was childish and manipulative. They slept apart for the last couple of decades I think.
Grandparents on Dad's side, beat the crap out of each other regularly. Had a bunch of kids. Lived poor in the North Carolina tobacco lands. But Grandma was a hell of a cook, though. Could make pretty much anything taste pretty good, and in fact I shudder a bit to think of some of the ingredients in some of the southern cookin' I ate when I was a kid.
But basically "until death do us part" was something that phased out pretty much with my grandparents' generation, in my eyes, and watching them, that model of marriage was not anything I'd care to emulate. A lot more examples and reinforcements into my pattern of belief that nothing really lasts forever. You might get a good run, but the only thing that comes of it when you promise "forever" to someone, is that you'll probably try to resuscitate a dead marriage for more years than you ought, wasting time you could be living much more happily apart. Which is, I guess, what I did with my ex.
Though in all honesty, being the pragmatist that I am, I do think some things are more important than one's own happiness. I had a sort of manufactured domestic harmony for a long time, though I was doing it for the kids. I think they had a reasonably happy early childhood. If I could point to one specific point where I wish I'd severed my ties and walked, it would be right after we actually broke up, in early 2015. I hung around in his house trying to help him afford life until he got his act together, and ran up my credit cards pretty bad in the process (because he wasn't working) and now I'm getting stuck with a lot of debt, that I wouldn't have had, if I'd just split and forced him to get a job then and there. Not to mention how many hours of providing him with "garage therapy" I might have spared myself...
But now my poly quad that I've been in for the last year is dissolving, it seems, but I don't think that points to "instability." From my POV, it just wasn't working as well, and unlike in a marriage, I didn't feel that I should shut up about my needs that weren't being met and my issues, and just try to "make it work" just...because. It was my feeling that I should try to express myself somehow even if it was hard, and if it's time to withdraw, attempt to do it gracefully. I may or may not have succeeded in that. But I don't think we exploded in a storm of drama and hissyfits, and my kids weren't really affected much.
(Also, I stand corrected on a point made in an earlier post, what I meant to say is that the most "stable" as in longterm functioning, poly configs I've seen have been MMF -or- MFM, two men and a woman, operating as a triad -or- a V. The main reason I say this is to state that what many think of as the poly default, multiple women, isn't always necessarily the most harmonious longterm from what I have seen.)
Ravenscroft
Banned
I'm still not onboard with "stability" being particularly necessary, & maybe not all so desirable.
I mean: stable... static... inflexible... rote... set... rigid... uniform...
If you've ever stood on the deck of a boat rolling through choppy water, isn't it better to stay loose, be flexible?
How many of you still hang out with all the same "best friends" you had twenty years ago? ten years? five? two?
Why do you not still live in the first home you had after you were born? How many jobs have you had?
Monogamist thinking is predicated upon the myth that lifelong stability can be wished into existence by the mere act of "being in love."
Beyond this, there's the untenable belief that it's the couple that somehow is to magically endure all difficulty -- throwing in a baby or three & sanctifying it as the all-holy FAMILY does nothing to make it real.
It's a community that endures, a loose & slowly shifting network of family (people related to you somehow by genetics or marriage or cohabitation or adoption) & friends & acquaintances & business connections & neighbors.
A community can endure quite nicely even if the membership is ever changing.
Is it therefore unstable?
I mean: stable... static... inflexible... rote... set... rigid... uniform...
If you've ever stood on the deck of a boat rolling through choppy water, isn't it better to stay loose, be flexible?
How many of you still hang out with all the same "best friends" you had twenty years ago? ten years? five? two?
Why do you not still live in the first home you had after you were born? How many jobs have you had?
Monogamist thinking is predicated upon the myth that lifelong stability can be wished into existence by the mere act of "being in love."
Beyond this, there's the untenable belief that it's the couple that somehow is to magically endure all difficulty -- throwing in a baby or three & sanctifying it as the all-holy FAMILY does nothing to make it real.
It's a community that endures, a loose & slowly shifting network of family (people related to you somehow by genetics or marriage or cohabitation or adoption) & friends & acquaintances & business connections & neighbors.
A community can endure quite nicely even if the membership is ever changing.
Is it therefore unstable?
Last edited:
Spork
Active member
Just thought of one other thing...
So I went to pick up the wheelchair when Zen and I went to Comic Con. He'd fallen and had an ankle injury and I didn't want to take any chances...and renting one is cheap. So there I am. And I'm chatting with the lady, telling her the story of what happened and all, but there are overtones of "this is a delightful relationship and we're very in love" in my talk, obviously.
And the woman says, at one point, something to the effect of an "Oh, how sweet" but I clearly remember her next sentence: "I hope it lasts FOREVER."
That...I felt like someone, for a moment, had frozen time. Like the world hiccupped. I just stood there and blinked at her, like "what...what do you mean..." You know I think, I grew up reading too many stories and watching too many late night horror/drama type shows, your Twilight Zones and such... Because this has a flavor of "be careful what you wish for" to me. In one of those cautionary tales, the wish for a relationship to last FOREVER would involve zombies or something.
So. Yeah. It struck me as a bizarre thing to say. But I guess for normalfolk, it's not so much...
So I went to pick up the wheelchair when Zen and I went to Comic Con. He'd fallen and had an ankle injury and I didn't want to take any chances...and renting one is cheap. So there I am. And I'm chatting with the lady, telling her the story of what happened and all, but there are overtones of "this is a delightful relationship and we're very in love" in my talk, obviously.
And the woman says, at one point, something to the effect of an "Oh, how sweet" but I clearly remember her next sentence: "I hope it lasts FOREVER."
That...I felt like someone, for a moment, had frozen time. Like the world hiccupped. I just stood there and blinked at her, like "what...what do you mean..." You know I think, I grew up reading too many stories and watching too many late night horror/drama type shows, your Twilight Zones and such... Because this has a flavor of "be careful what you wish for" to me. In one of those cautionary tales, the wish for a relationship to last FOREVER would involve zombies or something.
So. Yeah. It struck me as a bizarre thing to say. But I guess for normalfolk, it's not so much...
Speaking of what is the most stable poly configuration, I am in a 7.5 year FF relationship. We cohabit, have for 3 years. Most of the time we have both had a bf or two of our own. Pixi has a smaller dating pool than I do. In our time together she's had 3 bfs, and one or two flings. I have had 2, 2.5 year relationships, one long distance 2 year relationship, and one 7 month relationship, and most recently a 9 months relationship that suddenly (not by my choice) has transitioned to friends.
Pixi has had one relationship with a guy for about 6 months, and one for a year or so, and her present bf saw her for a year, took a break for his own personal reasons for a year, and now they are back together for another year and doing well.
I broke up with 2 of the guys when I found out we really did not have similar relationship goals. The long distance one just gradually simmered down. One of the 2 year relationships was with a very young guy who moved on to a mono relationship with a woman closer to his age (still older than him). We kept in touch enough for him to tell me he wasn't particularly happy with her and thought of me a lot. He seemed to be staying with her out of inertia, even though he wants kids and she doesn't.
And finally, the 9 month relationship that just ended... sigh. His mom died and they had a fucked up dynamic and he has to rebuild his life.
So, my gf and I are very stable. The men seem to come and go. I'd rather someone would be with me longer. But I was married for over 30 years and mono, with a man, and we stayed together out of stubbornness, and to "work on things" long past the expiration date, unhappy for the last 10 years. We met when I was 19 and broke up when I was 54! We'd grown so apart in those many decades. I think part of our motivation was both our sets of parents had long term relationships, so we had that goal. His mom and dad seem pretty happy. My mom died several years ago. And their marriage wasn't great, even though she put a happy face on things.
So now, I am not about to settle for a so-so relationship with a guy.
I find the relationship with my gf to be very stable since our communication is so great. The men, who have been of all ages, that I've been with, have seemed less self aware, more defensive in serious talks, more passive aggressive, more sarcastic, more violent, more likely to yell, more likely to dredge up old issues, and more likely to retreat into a metaphorical cave and not be open to me, and that seems to often fuck our relationships up.
Pixi has had one relationship with a guy for about 6 months, and one for a year or so, and her present bf saw her for a year, took a break for his own personal reasons for a year, and now they are back together for another year and doing well.
I broke up with 2 of the guys when I found out we really did not have similar relationship goals. The long distance one just gradually simmered down. One of the 2 year relationships was with a very young guy who moved on to a mono relationship with a woman closer to his age (still older than him). We kept in touch enough for him to tell me he wasn't particularly happy with her and thought of me a lot. He seemed to be staying with her out of inertia, even though he wants kids and she doesn't.
And finally, the 9 month relationship that just ended... sigh. His mom died and they had a fucked up dynamic and he has to rebuild his life.
So, my gf and I are very stable. The men seem to come and go. I'd rather someone would be with me longer. But I was married for over 30 years and mono, with a man, and we stayed together out of stubbornness, and to "work on things" long past the expiration date, unhappy for the last 10 years. We met when I was 19 and broke up when I was 54! We'd grown so apart in those many decades. I think part of our motivation was both our sets of parents had long term relationships, so we had that goal. His mom and dad seem pretty happy. My mom died several years ago. And their marriage wasn't great, even though she put a happy face on things.
So now, I am not about to settle for a so-so relationship with a guy.
I find the relationship with my gf to be very stable since our communication is so great. The men, who have been of all ages, that I've been with, have seemed less self aware, more defensive in serious talks, more passive aggressive, more sarcastic, more violent, more likely to yell, more likely to dredge up old issues, and more likely to retreat into a metaphorical cave and not be open to me, and that seems to often fuck our relationships up.
opalescent
Active member
Does stable mean longevity of relationship(s)? Or lack of chaos/drama? Or both? Or some other definition I've overlooked?
I do think mere longevity is not enough as a marker of stability. As noted above, plenty of people stay in miserable, chaotic long term relationships for a variety of reasons.
I really do think that except for the number of people involved, poly and mono relationships are stable to the extent the people involved are stable. Now more people can increase the risk of chaos occurring. However there is also the positive (in my view) effect where one has to confront issues in a poly relationship that can be ignored for years in a monogamous one. (I'm not saying this is inevitable to monogamy - just that default monogamy, less than consciously chosen monogamy can encourage coasting in ways that are harder to sustain in poly relationships.
I do think mere longevity is not enough as a marker of stability. As noted above, plenty of people stay in miserable, chaotic long term relationships for a variety of reasons.
I really do think that except for the number of people involved, poly and mono relationships are stable to the extent the people involved are stable. Now more people can increase the risk of chaos occurring. However there is also the positive (in my view) effect where one has to confront issues in a poly relationship that can be ignored for years in a monogamous one. (I'm not saying this is inevitable to monogamy - just that default monogamy, less than consciously chosen monogamy can encourage coasting in ways that are harder to sustain in poly relationships.