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

Thanks. You could be right, but that is one of the things I am appreciating about this community… the openness to other ideas, and the primacy of each person being to define for themselves the nature of their relationship, as long as everyone involved understands and agrees.

Certainly, finances are a large contributor, as the quality of both our lives would be significantly impacted for the worse if we pursued divorce. But we also recognize many other benefits of the marriage that make it worth it to us - today - to keep that in place.

And since I didn’t win megamillions last night! sigh …

And the truth is… we could both be right.

But, isn’t one of the main principles here that the parties in the relationship get to define what works for them, so long as there are clear boundaries and expectations?

Thanks again for engaging.
 
But, isn’t one of the main principles here that the parties in the relationship get to define what works for them, so long as there are clear boundaries and expectations?
Sure, but when it comes to what really constitutes clear boundaries and expectations, it's a bigger topic than you think.

On paper, there isn't much difference between someone who's in your position and someone who's in a more conventional marriage, for want of a better term, one where it's just about the love and attraction and passion, on top of all that practical side. I'll just call it "conventional."

So on paper, not much difference, but as ENM/poly people, we are in a unique position of having interacted with lots of people who are opening their marriages consensually, as in, both parties have said yes to this as a way forward.

Now, I'm not saying we all draw the same conclusions from our individual experiences, but we gather enough data to know that this is how we see it work. We can make some generalisations about our own experiences and often we will find at least some people have made similar conclusions from theirs.

Additionally, another thing we all come to realise is that terms like consent, informed and ethical can be used and misappropriated. In turn, related terms like boundaries and expectations, words that we use to do things like procure informed consent to remain ethical, can be seen as more useful than they really are.

What does this mean for you and your post? IMO, separating that this is something to sustain your marriage is important for partners to realise so you can actually give them enough information to consent to what you're asking. It's also important for you to comprehend so you can formulate realistic boundaries and expectations, given what you can and can't offer. Figuring out what you can honestly offer someone in terms of a fulfilling relationship is going to be key.

For an unattached person who is flirting with ENM, the fact you might want monogamy with them if you split with your wife might be an unexpected bonus. If you partner with someone who is highly partnered themselves, you wanting to be monogamous with them or anyone else is going to be a blow.
 
Not to pick at the semantic carcass of what makes a dead marriage, but if the lack of money is the only thing standing in the way of divorce, the marriage is dead.
I'd disagree. But then, I see marriage as a legal contract between two people and the state. It does not require a romantic relationship. If the two people are happy in that legal contract then the marriage goes on happily. That can be for financial, medical, immigration or a bunch of other reasons. IMO the only bad reason to get married is for love. Marriage has nothing to do with love. If more people knew that, we'd have a lot less divorce.

If it's about love then you can make a commitment. No marriage needed. They are two separate things.
 
I'd disagree.
Are you sure about that ?
But then, I see marriage as a legal contract between two people and the state.
Yes, AND BY THE OP'S ADMISSION had he won the lotto, he’d be divorced. It sounds like, for him or them, the only glue holding this legal contract together is the lack of money and the hit everyone would take setting up two households and separating everything. One party in that legal contract wants out, and the unwinding process in community property states can get expensive.
It does not require a romantic relationship.
Maybe not for you. To each his own. For the unenlightened masses it could be a big component. Just sayin.'
If the two people are happy in that legal contract then the marriage goes on happily. That can be for financial, medical, immigration or a bunch of other reasons.
No argument if both parties enter into the marriage contract to USE or to scam the system. That's a different ball of wax. What are the divorce stats on that? So when the tax laws or insurance regulations change, then, see ya later, we’re done? Treat marriage as a gym club membership. 😆👍 When it’s works, great, and when you’re done, try to get out.
IMO the only bad reason to get married is for love.
How many time have you been married? What were the reasons?
Marriage has nothing to do with love. If more people knew that, we'd have a lot less divorce.
Amen.😝
If it's about love, then you can make a commitment. No marriage needed. They are two separate things.
RIGHT. And I’ve never understood people who “identify“ as poly, who build relationships based on said identity, and still press to get married with a ceremony and party. But again, to each their own.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top