Relationship transitions?

[Dagferi]

If you're legally married in a place where marriage is defined in some way or another as a union of two people to the exclusion of all others, then there's no way to objectively substantiate the claim that you're in a polyamorous relationship. But I don't know the particulars of your marriage. Maybe it's something informal where you've created your own poly vows and haven't made any mono religious covenant or legally binding agreement ( such as a marriage certificate ) that stipulates that your relationship is in fact mono ( as opposed to some self-serving opinion that it's otherwise ),



There's a difference between "heavily entangled" and interrelated enough to have meaning in each others lives. If there's no meaningful interrelation then everyone is just a number in everyone else's directory, and that's swinging, not polyamory.

How dare you dictate and put down anyone's relationship who does fit your narrow view of what polyamory is and is not. Who made you the poly police?

How dare you insinuate that Murf is anything less than my husband just like Butch. Only thing missing is the little piece of paper from the government between Murf and I. So what if they do not have anything to do with each other. They do not need to have any sort of relationship or talk to each other. That has no bearing on whether or not my life is polyamorous.

Guess what I own seperate property with both men. I am finacially entwined with both men. Have both men as beneficiaries of my estate. Both men have medical power of attorney. I travel with both. I celebrate holidays with both separately. My family sees them both. I vacation with both. I bring both to social and work events. Who ever is off work is the one eho goes with. I live with both in seperate homes. I even own dogs with both men.

Only thing missing is a stupid piece of paper...

How dare you say my relationship is nothing more than swinging.

 

[lunabunny]

PolyNatural: I'm not sure that derailing the thread by engaging in a pedantic/semantic debate regarding the nature of "true" polyamory (at least, as YOU interpret it) is either respectful to the OP or serving any useful purpose insofar as offering practical advice on her dilemma goes.

 

[vinsanity0]

You're the one that brought being "in love" as a point relevant to the discussion, so if it's silly, then why did you bother mentioning it in the first place?

It wasn't I who brought up the "difference".

 

[lunabunny]

MsEmotional: It sounds like you are anticipating some form of loneliness and even envy on the part of Glasses, toward you and Ponytail, once Ginger moves out of State... leading to him feeling "at a loose end" and more demanding of your attention... and this is causing you to "borrow trouble" in the form of pre-emptive guilt/fear that you won't have either the time or inclination to provide him with extra support and attention when he needs it most.

It sounds to me as if you're bonding more strongly with Ponytail at this time (only natural, considering you are probably still in the NRE phase) and that these feelings are causing emotional conflict, because you recognise that the idea of your time being co-opted for emotional support is already making you feel resentful and fearful of the one-on-one time it may take away from you and Ponytail.

Additionally, you believe that Glasses' partner moving away will cause an imbalance in childcare duties, since he will end up with the bulk of "extra" childminding time when you and your boyfriend wish to spend time together as a couple. Is it your fear that you'll end up "owing" Glasses more time/attention because of this imbalance?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you're battling internal feelings of anxiety that "quality time" with Ponytail may soon be curtailed; resentment that your husband has expressed no interest in dating around in Ginger's absence (which might have provided him with additional stimulation and alleviated his dependence on your relationship); and some guilt over the realisation that you really don't wish to extend yourself further in the relationship with Glasses at this time.

I don't think any of these feelings are unnatural or wrong, per se, however you do have to be careful not to overthink to the point of catastrophising every nuance of each potential change ahead of time. At the moment, you're projecting your own fears onto Glasses and are making presumptions regarding his reactions, before these events have actually come to pass.

It has been said time and time again, but it's true that communication is key in polyamorous relationships. Your husband's relationship dynamic/structure with his OSO is about to change. This doesn't necessarily mean your relationship with either him OR Ponytail has to change markedly. Be clear about your own boundaries and pre-existing agreements, and if necessary, negotiate new ones.

If you haven't done so already, set aside some quiet, private time to talk about all this, without making a federal case out of it if possible. Once Ginger actually leaves and the dust has settled, you will better be able to ascertain how that relationship develops (or perhaps dissolves) and how, or IF, it impacts the dynamic between you and Glasses. You can then act/react accordingly.

 

[PolyNatural]

How dare you dictate and put down anyone's relationship who does fit your narrow view of what polyamory is and is not.

I'm not "putting down" anyone else's relationship. I'm simply stating facts about how legal marriages are typically defined as being mono in law in Western nations and pointing out that if that is the type of marriage someone is in, they are by definition, legally in a mono relationship, not a poly one. I'll only make a judgement call about the person if they are fully aware of the ethical considerations, facts, and compromises. At this point I don't know how much thought you've actually put into these points, and therefore have made no personal judgement about you or your relationships ( on a personal level ).

How dare you insinuate that Murf is anything less than my husband just like Butch. Only thing missing is the little piece of paper from the government between Murf and I.

If that "little piece of paper says you're in a certified marriage defined as a mono in some way ( like most are here in the west ), then by definition and in law you're in a mono marriage. And if you're in another romantic relationship and having sex outside marriage, then by definition and in law you're committing adultery.

These are simply facts, not opinions or judgmental criticism, and what makes me able to determine those facts is my literacy and intelligence just like anyone else with a brain. You can look up the definitions and read them for yourself as well as read what people like Easton & Hardy have to say about marriage and polyamory. They'd do away with marriage altogether, and I agree, because it creates these sorts of ethical issues.

So what if they do not have anything to do with each other. They do not need to have any sort of relationship or talk to each other. That has no bearing on whether or not my life is polyamorous.

I'm one of those who believe that all normal people are innately poly but that most people over here in the West are socialized or socially conditioned into a mono lifestyle, and the system is setup to reinforce that, which is the root cause of these sorts of issues. So yes, you are most probably poly, and you embrace it, which is wonderful. But you seem to me to be a bit fuzzy around the edges when it comes to mapping poly principles onto your relationship.

I believe you mean well enough, but that doesn't change the facts that I'm pointing out. It's difficult sometimes, but try to see what I'm saying from an objective viewpoint as someone who isn't in your relationship and is just looking at the factors as they're presented here and how they compare to objective sources like actual legal statutes and other reference material.

Guess what I own seperate property with both men. I am finacially entwined with both men. Have both men as beneficiaries of my estate. Both men have medical power of attorney. I travel with both. I celebrate holidays with both separately. My family sees them both. I vacation with both. I bring both to social and work events. Who ever is off work is the one eho goes with. I live with both in seperate homes. I even own dogs with both men.

Cool. I'm substantially impressed.

Only thing missing is a stupid piece of paper...

If the piece of paper is so stupid why not remove it from the equation altogether rather than simply ignoring the facts about what it means? That would solve a whole range of issues, and also prevent other legal ones involving estate matters. Legal marriages take precedence, and if there were a civil suit it's possible that the imbalance in legal status could disrupt what you intend. However if everyone was on equal ground, that wouldn't be the case.

How dare you say my relationship is nothing more than swinging.

I think there's a misunderstanding about swinging there. In looking at how swinging is defined and practiced, there is certainly the shallow end of the pool where truly poly people prefer not to play. But the spectrum extends all the way up to complex emotional relationships, and when making a comparison between poly and swinging the clear cut dividing line appears to be where there is substantial interestedness, at which point it is crystal clear it's no longer swinging but poly.

I realize that this sort of hard-line analysis doesn't sit well with everyone because everyone likes to think that what they're doing makes perfect sense, and they don't like it when people point out that there are issues. However I myself would have no problem calling myself a hypocrite for entering into a legal marriage here in Canada, then having a relationship outside that, and calling it poly. It's not. But also, after hearing more about your level of involvement with both your partners, in the absence of having a number of others as well, I would have to agree that it doesn't really count as swinging. I don't know what it is apart from adultery ( which sounds harsh but is objectively factual if you're in a legally binding mono marriage. ) Hypothetically, if you could be married to both, that wouldn't require any interrelatedness and it would solve the adultery issue, but it would be polygamy ( not polyamory ).

Who made you the poly police?

One doesn't need to be the "police" to lookup statutes and regulations for how marriage is legally defined and compare that to other reference material in order to objectively identify issues that are relevant to the subject they're interested in. Therefore I or anyone else with a brain should know that putting their signature on official marriage documents of a mono nature and swearing an oath before a designated official and God to abide by it, that there's no question that they're be agreeing to the terms of that contract. Your statutes may be different. I don't know. But if they're not, then ignoring the facts doesn't change the reality of the situation. If you find that uncomfortable, the solution isn't to blame me for pointing that out, but to get a legal divorce and put everyone on the same playing field.

 

[Leetah]

Putting a cautious 2 cents in, "legal"and "ethical" are not always the same.

This discussion should be moved over to the Definition Thread also.

 

[PolyNatural]

Putting a cautious 2 cents in, "legal"and "ethical" are not always the same.

I completely agree. There are two levels of ethics involved here. The first is in the way legal marriages discriminate against alternative relationships. The second is agreeing to abide by those terms by giving an oath and a signature before a group of witnesses to prove that you endorse it ( when in fact you really don't ). If one is going to agree to something with such specific terms and in such an official manner, perhaps even swearing before God that they will abide by it, then there is a serious ethical issue in breaking that contract or covenant.

It's not just OK to make promises and sign contracts that you don't agree with because you want some fringe benefits out of it or whatever the case may be. After all, something as important as marriage vows can be interpreted as anything anyone wants, how can you trust them not to interpret other types of formal agreements in an equally self serving manner? Personally I don't agree with marriage so I won't have anything to do with it. But if I did sign the contract and agree to the terms I'd damn well honor my vows.

This discussion should be moved over to the Definition Thread also.

That's up to the mods. I'm just responding to the issues brought up as part of the discussion. I'm honestly not trying to offend anyone, but it's hard for people to remain objective in these discussions.

 

[Emm]

Moderator note:

The hijack stops here. If you are going to post in this thread please ensure that your reply is related to the original topic or your posts will be deleted. If you wish to continue discussing definitions of "poly" I recommend doing so in the definitions of polyamory thread.