Question: how do folks refer to a "primary" that has not been romantic for a long long time?

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

But do you consider that only when a couple haven't transitioned from mono-normavity yet?

To answer this specifically, I don't think a couple in a dead marriage can transition from mono-normativity together. And I don't count sustaining a dead marriage and dating other people as a solution as transitioning from mono-normavity. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

For the most part, I think shedding mono-normativity is an individual thing. I think it almost has to be done while you're single. I don't think you can really do it as part of one of the most mono-normative structures there is: the heterosexual/heteronormative marriage.

 

[LaminarFlow]

Polyamory is having, or the potential of having, multiple intimate relationships, right? (Or multiple romantic relationships, loving relationships, however you want to say it.)

Generally on this forum it is about love, loyalty and commitment to multiple people, yes.

If you're in a dead marriage, you have no intimate/romantic relationship. It's might be loving, but that's platonic. So if you get a romantic partner outside your loving relationship, you have one romantic/intimate relationship, not more than one.

It's still love, just redirected as "storge" love. You can still be close as friends, co-parents and roommates.

You may well be open to having other partners, too. So you have your platonic marriage that has no intimacy or romance. Then you have, say, three other romantic/intimate relationships. Yes, you could say you're poly, if that's what you're open to, or that's what you have.

It kind of depends on what and how much the hinge is willing to commit to. When you talk to a potential date, you discuss that through bringing up the relationship non-escalator menu and see what one could commit to.

The OP, in this case, has the willingness. If in practise that will be feasible, they will have to see (eventually, through transition).

I feel like I have so much more to offer someone and explore with another person or persons.

However, in my experience, those relationships are usually compatible with the person in a dead marriage. They terminate when that marriage is over, as availability shifts. So while I acknowledge that it meets the definition of polyamory, I still don't trust that that person is long-term poly-compatible.

Apologies. I don't understand this part. It depends on high and low commitment?

When I was in a different phase of my life, it felt a lot like someone who wanted all the social and practical privileges of marriage, while offsetting the downsides of their bad marriage with someone like me. They just didn't want to give up the assets, or have to have their kids on their own half the time, or whatever. It wasn't suited to someone who wanted a life partner, basically. Nowadays that kind of low commitment and entanglement dating suits me better.

I went on a date with someone with a dead marriage structure who had two little kids and one other GF. It went perfectly fine. I think it really depends on what kind of commitment you are seeking and have to offer. They have a gpp/ktp dynamic.

 

[LaminarFlow]

To answer this specifically, I don't think a couple in a dead marriage can transition from mono-normativity together. And I don't count sustaining a dead marriage and dating other people as a solution as transitioning from mono-normavity. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Having a bad marriage, vs redirecting it to just having a loving and good friendship, and being co-parents as a base, is totally different.

For the most part, I think shedding mono-normativity is an individual thing. I think it almost has to be done while you're single. I don't think you can really do it as part of one of the most mono-normative structures there is: the heterosexual/heteronormative marriage

I don't agree with the single part. I know a handful of heterosexual/heteronormative couples stripping the mono-normativity, even with super-religious backgrounds. For one couple it was a lot of work, but for the other three it was easy and they had no problems with transition, or didn't even had to transition. The plus part is that they are all doing poly now, so they don't have dead marriages.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

It's still love, just redirected as "storge" love. You can still be close as friends, co-parents and roommates.

Then the fact that my mono friend has a best friend makes them poly? No. Polyamory isn't about being friends or roommates. These are different types of relationships.

While there may be some relationship anarchists that see the world differently, the vast majority of people are not RAs.

It kind of depends on what and how much the hinge is willing to commit to.

What the hinge is willing to commit to plays no part in whether their marriage is intimate or not. If you have your dead marriage with no intimacy, and then a boyfriend with whom you do share an intimate relationship, you are in one intimate relationship. Once you acknowledge that your marriage is dead and not intimate, then that relationship stops counting as polyamory. Just like the relationship with your best friend doesn't count, because it is platonic.

Apologies. I don't understand this part. It depends on high and low commitment?

Most people with a dead marriage are looking for ways to sustain the dead marriage (by living together, etc.) while still enjoying actual real intimacy with someone else. That's their priority. Not polyamory, just sustaining the dead marriage for financial or practical reasons.

When that is no longer a necessity, most of these dead-marriage people will not find anything attractive about polyamory. They'll just want to be in a normal monogamous relationship. Their only attraction to polyamory is that it currently allows them to have their cake and eat it.

I think it really depends on what kind of commitment you are seeking and have to offer.

Are you in a dead marriage right now? The people most compatible with those in a dead marriage are people who are also in one, or highly partnered.

Having a bad marriage, vs redirecting it to just having a loving and good friendship, and being co-parents as a base, is totally different.

No, it's just the couple not wanting to give up mono-normative social privileges. That isn't a transition from mono-normativity. "Our marriage is over, but because it's advantageous to us, we will act like it isn't, so we still reap the benefits from presenting that way." That is as mono-normative as you can get.

I don't agree with the single part. I know a handful of heterosexual/heteronormative couples stripping the mono-normativity, even with super-religious backgrounds. For one couple, it was a lot of work, but for the other three it was easy. They had no problems with transition, or didn't even have to transition. The plus part is that they are all doing poly now, so there are no dead marriages.

I think we have different ideas about shedding mono-normativity, because you think people in a dead marriage who use polyamory to try and gather some joy through intimacy are shedding mono-normativity, while I really do not.

 

[LaminarFlow]

Then the fact that my mono friend has a best friend makes them poly? No. Polyamory isn't about being friends or roommates. These are different types of relationships.

While there may be some relationship anarchists that see the world differently, the vast majority of people are not RAs.

The OP said they feel like they have more to offer to other people, so I don't think being fully mono applies here.

Maybe it's my location/environment (or the company I attract) but I bump into more RA couples than ones that stay mono-normative.

What the hinge is willing to commit to plays no part in whether their marriage is intimate or not. If you have your dead marriage with no intimacy, and then a boyfriend where you do share an intimate relationship, then you are in one intimate relationship. Once you acknowledge that your marriage is dead and not intimate, then that relationship stops counting as polyamory. Just like the relationship with your best friend doesn't count, because it is platonic.

Agree.

Most people with a dead marriage are looking for ways to sustain the dead marriage (by living together, etc.) while still enjoying actual real intimacy with someone else. That's their priority, not polyamory, just sustaining the dead marriage for financial or practical reasons.

Doesn't it depend on how your approach towards it is, and what kind of structure you're desiring? If one actually wants to sustain the dead marriage household with New Partners, it's okay.

When that no longer becomes a necessity, most of these dead marriage people will not find anything attractive about polyamory. They'll just want to be in a normal monogamous relationship. Their only attraction to polyamory is that it currently allows them to have their cake and eat it.

Agree.

Are you in a dead marriage right now? The people most compatible with those in a dead marriage are people who are also in one, or highly partnered.

No, but I have talked to a few and dated one who has the same values as me, so I was willing to go on a date with him. His GF knows his kids and NP.

I think we have different ideas about shedding mono-normativity, because you think people in a dead marriage who use polyamory to try and gather some joy through intimacy are shedding mono-normativity, while I really do not.

Maybe. I do understand the majority will be mono-normative as a default, but there is no reason why a couple couldn't transition to GPP or KTP, if there was no jealousy.

 

[Tinwen]

You two are just arguing different generalisations (with not much relationship to the original post). I can understand why SeasonedPoly would be wary of people in "dead marriages," and why a lot of them would end up monogamous again after the marriage arrangement is no longer favourable, but there's no reason why some of them (percentage not specifiable) couldn't grow to being truly poly. One has to actually talk to the person to even start guessing who is who.

 

[LaminarFlow]

One has to actually talk to the person to even start guessing who is who.

The OP is the one that will be dating. Their NP has no interest in seeing someone else. The OP is the sole provider, so there might be some power imbalance there that needs to be addressed.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

If one actually wants to sustain the dead marriage household with New Partners it's okay.

We aren't talking about what is okay or not. We are talking about, or at least I'm talking about, what makes the "dead marriage" crowd poor at long-term compatibility with polyamory.

There is no reason why a couple couldn't transition to GPP or KTP, if there is no jealousy.

Yes, but KTP or GPP isn't a definite indication that someone has shed mono-normativity. Because by contrast, you'd be saying that someone who prefers parallel poly likely has not. These things have little to do with each other, especially when you're not dealing with people new to poly.

@Tinwen Some definitely do. I just see the end of their marriage as like a neutral ground, and from there, the odds are more likely 50/50 or 60/40 that they'll just want monogamy.

 

[LaminarFlow]

We aren't talking about what is okay or not. We are talking about, or at least I'm talking about, what makes the "dead marriage" crowd poor at long-term compatibility with polyamory.

Yes, my point was about the approach. If one does their research and transitions just like any mono couple going to poly, I don't see the issue. You usually find out during transition that you want to Close again, if that is the case. I see a "dead marriage" also as neutral ground, but opening up in many different ways.

Yes but KTP or GPP isn't a definite indication that someone has shed mono-normativity. Because by contrast, you'd be saying that someone who prefers parallel poly likely has not. These things have little to do with each other, especially when you're not dealing with people new to poly.

It was an example. They could do co-primary if that's what they desire. The approach and principles, for me, stay the same.

 

[Magdlyn]

I have an issue with the term "dead marriage." I don't think it's been properly defined in the context of this thread. For me, a marriage is dead if the members have become entirely indifferent to each other, or actively dislike each other very much (even hate each other). A marriage that has lost the romantic spark, but where a solid friendship, ability to cooperate, respect each other, ability to share a meal or take a trip together and not argue, with the ability to take care of the kids (if any) in a pleasant manner (not badmouthing the other parent to the kids), etc., is not a dead marriage. It's still a positive partnership. Romantic love and sex may be absent, but deep-friendship type love still abides. ("Storge," as Laminar said.) I call this a living marriage. I would say that if your household is well-established and working well, good house, kids, pets, systems, routines, habits, maybe involved grandparents, aunts, uncles, it is not a "dead marriage." The sex has just died out. There may still be deep emotional intimacy.

Therefore if one or both of the married partners decide they wanted romantic/sexual energy as well, and can no longer find it with their partner, if they seek that outside the marriage, I'd still call it polyamory.

There are two factors. One is the use of the word "intimacy." It can mean emotional intimacy, or it can mean sex. Let's use it with the first definition. A sexless marriage can still be intimate, if communication is good, shared experiences and memories are strong and meaningful, there is support, there are shared hobbies and interests, etc.

The other factor is "relationship anarchy." I think there are more people who are actually RA than we know. If you are not RA, the idea is that your primary partner takes precedence always, in your love and care. (If kids are involved, their needs come before those of the primary partner, although some immature partners will resent that.) In RA, of all the people in your life, you don't place first priority on your primary partner. You don't even have a primary partner. You have partners, friends, family, kids. You meet the needs of the one most in need first, or you choose to be with the one(s) you desire most at any given time.

Right now, my partner Pixi has been away from me for months, in another state, taking care of her mother, who is suffering from dementia, and whose father also has mental issues that prevent him being reasonable about the mother's care needs. Even though Pixi probably wouldn't say she is RA, her mother's needs trump my needs and the needs of Pixi's other primary (Malachi) right now.

So, maybe a couple who is in a sexless/non-romantic marriage, who still care deeply about each other, and want to Open their relationship, can be RA without knowing the term or thinking about what it means.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

My wife and I have not been romantically involved for well over 15 years.

The fact that there is no dating/intimacy involved at all with my “nesting partner” is what confuses me a little in regards the “amorous” part of the “polyamorous” part.

I think intimacy/romance is self defined.

We are good friends, co-parents, etc.

We realize that we'd be better off if we could find a path to basically being roommates and each other's support system.

^^

She has strong structural attachments to marriage, etc.

All of what I'm talking about is directly related to this OP.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

If one does their research and transitions just like any mono couple going to poly, I don't see the issue.

Because ideally and very often, the mono couple is in a fully intimate marriage and intend to stay that way. It isn't a way to get intimacy they don't already have, it's a way to add more intimate relationships to the one they already have. That creates quite a stark difference, IME.

It was an example. They could do co-primary if that's what they desire. The approach and principles, for me, stay the same.

I think we are using these terms in very different contexts.

 

[LaminarFlow]

@SEASONEDpolyAgain

My "nesting partner" and I are taking it very slow while we both learn about this model and think through the various things to consider. We are both growing alot and learning so much about attachment styles, etc.

This is transition. Doesn't need to be with romantic love only, can be with storge love too. I agree with Magdlyn that, to me, it would be considered polyamory, as well. A couple in a dead marriage wouldn't even consider themselves as growing and evolving together.

I'm sure my starting to date will bring up a lot more stuff to be worked through as there are a lot of security attachments that come with me being the primary source of income.

More transition.

I feel like I have so much more to offer someone and explore with another person or persons. Time will tell... Easy does it and one day at a time.

No explanation here.

 

[Magdlyn]

I think intimacy/romance is self defined.

I don't see that. I'd ask the OP what he means by intimacy-- sex, romance, or emotional intimacy, continued deep feelings of friendship, respect, support?

All of what I'm talking about is directly related to this OP.

I don't see that. I see you making some generalizations, using unclear terms like "dead marriage." I am a student of history, so I take a larger view of the benefits of marriage. It could just be a legal arrangement. It could be a means to reproduce (have kids). It could be to get a mate who shares your career interests, say, a farmer who wants a wife who also has farming skills, or a soldier who needs a wife who will be okay with his absences and risks to his life in battle.

It's only in extremely recent times that marriages have become this romantic ideal, where you love and desire your spouse and make the (silly) promise to love and desire them forever, the same way you do on your wedding day. Obviously, no one can predict the future. If you marry at age 22, you will be a different person at 44 and may no longer love or desire, in the same way, or share interests with your also-maturing spouse.

Therefore, in my opinion, a marriage is not automatically "dead," or no longer a marriage, if the initial "love," excitement, NRE, or shared interests wane. You can still deeply love your spouse if some emotional intimacy is there. If you're not putting in the work of keeping the relationship alive, because you got tired of trying, say, or you've just been basically avoiding the person you live with, if you've become indifferent, or there is hatred, abuse, etc., THEN I would say the marriage is "dead." In that case, if you opened the relationship, it would not be polyamory, because any kind of love for the spouse is gone, and you're just maintaining the very mere appearance of a marriage. If you dated one other person, you wouldn't be poly. You'd probably just be looking for a "soft landing" prior to breaking up. If, however, you dated more than one person, and planned to continue doing so, then you would be practicing polyamory.

Example: famous actor Spencer Tracy had a famously deep relationship with famous actor Katharine Hepburn, but they couldn't marry because Tracy's wife was a Roman Catholic and refused to divorce him, despite his adultery. He was married to his wife in name only. He wasn't polyamorous. He was monogamous with someone who was not his legal wife.

There are all kinds of marriages. I'd be careful which ones we call "dead."

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I don't see that. I'd ask the OP what he means by intimacy-- sex, romance, or emotional intimacy, continued deep feelings of friendship, respect, support?

I think the OPs description says enough. They're friends and co-parents. I don't see him describing their marriage as emotionally intimate or anything like that. People who are describing a loving, intimate but sexless marriage typically use those words to describe it.

The only reason they're not divorced is because they can't afford to be. He says that clearly. I'm not speculating about anything. It's written there in black and white.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

A dead marriage wouldn't even consider themselves growing and evolving together.

They can't afford to do anything but stay together.

No explanation here.

What can he offer?

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

While the easiest thing might be divorce, we just can't afford that,

^^

 

[LaminarFlow]

They can't afford to do anything but stay together.

That doesn't mean a relationship cannot still evolve. It's not that finite.

What can he offer?

We are here to find out. Probably in June when he will start dating.

 

[joegkayak]

Just catching up on all the discussion around my original post and the topic around “dead marriage," etc. It has been a huge help and I appreciate the thoughtful consideration and different perspectives.

For clarification, I would, after reading this thread, say that my marriage in NOT “dead,” in that we have a good friendship, are good partners as parents, home-owners, roommates, and other support that comes with aging parents, etc., etc. We have been able to share openly and honestly about the changing nature of our marriage and be supportive of our different paths.

I do agree that there is a big difference between the “theory” and “reality” of polyamory. And, there is just no way of knowing until I actually start dating and becoming romantic/intimate with another partner and, of course, take that person’s considerations into account.

From what I’m learning, I do find myself appreciating a poly-type situation if it becomes available and makes sense. But, I can also see how I might ultimately seek out a mono situation if I find myself unable to handle the more complex relationship dynamics of more than one romantic partner.

At this point, nothing more to be said! Stand by for future questions when I formally start to date and see how that goes.

My hope is that I will have done the necessary work on myself and understanding the poly community that I will at least be able to have intelligent, thoughtful discussions as I navigate through the inevitable learnings.

Thanks again, everyone. I’m really appreciating the support of this community. Thank you to the moderators and all who engaged.

 

[Magdlyn]

I'm glad you came back and added a little more info to the topics we've been discussing in your absence!

Thanks also for confirming that you do not consider your marriage "dead."

It sounds like if you decided to date, you would be "choosing" to practice polyamory, and would stop doing it if you found yourself unable/unwilling to handle the dynamics of having two partners.

Other poly practitioners feel we are poly not by choice, but as part of our intrinsic makeup or love style. Monogamy feels constricting, and the extra demands on our time and emotions to date more than one person are well worth it.