Relationships and commitment without the escalator?

GirlFromTexlahoma

GirlFromTexlahoma

New member
This is something I've been wondering about lately and I'm curious what others here think.

Reading here and other poly sites I've realized that there's a lot I don't understand about poly relationships. Particularly solo poly and other relationships that do not follow the relationship escalator model. I still can't quite wrap my head around how a relationship can feel close, committed, and intimate without a significant investment of time and energy.

I read about solo poly people's lives and to me it sounds like being single with multiple FWBs. I know that is NOT how they experience it. There's just a disconnect in my mind - I can't grasp how someone you see once a month can feel like a actual partner.

I listen to people talk about their spouse and their Other Significant Other, and hear them say both relationships are equally valuable to them... Even though they live with the spouse and see the OSO a couple times a year. And again, I know that's their experience, but I can't "get" it.

For me, the investment is what creates the feeling of being in a relationship, what takes something from casual sex, to dating or friends with benefits, to possibly a long term committed love. The importance of a relationship in my life - how much I value it - tracks pretty closely with how often we talk, how much time we spend together, and how much priority we are given in each other's lives. Those things build trust and closeness, and make me want to be open and intimate and loving with someone.

But I'm realizing that not everyone sees it that way. And I'd love to hear other perspectives on "non escalator" relationships. What builds emotional intimacy and trust? What signifies commitment? What makes certain relationships feel like partnerships while others stay casual?
 
For me, the definition of commitment is scheduling and then turning up as arranged.
My preference is to see a partner on a regular basis, a few times a month at minimum. I understand that there are certain periods off the year that get busy but I have enough people in my life that I only see occasionally, and the flaky friends drive me nuts so I don't want that for my romantic partners.
I also prefer a lot of communication, preferably daily, so the infrequent check-ins of FWB and FB style relationships is not my thing either. But never say never.
 
I'm solo poly and don't understand why people think that being solo only equates with having casual non-committal flings. There can definitely be commitment in relationships with solo poly people - it's just that the commitment is not to partnership. The way you're looking at solo poly is similar to how many monogamous folks view all poly arrangements, as if it can only be casual and un-committed. But I don't need someone to be "an actual partner" to have a deeply meaningful connection with him. To me, partnership and relationship are two different things, but it seems you see partnership as where a relationship is supposed to be heading?

Not riding the relationship escalator (which isn't just for solos, btw) does NOT mean there is no significant investment of time, energy, or anything else we put into a relationship. It simply means we don't need it to head toward some inevitable place, like living together or marriage. If a relationship is satisfying and fulfilling as it is right now, why does it have to "go somewhere" to be considered "serious" or meaningful? That's what an escalator does - takes us from ground level to somewhere higher and farther away because we think that's where we should be going.

Solo poly folks tend to be happy with where things are, without pushing it to be something else. We tend not to subscribe to the notion that the relationship needs a goal or endpoint we must reach to be valuable and meaningful to all involved (we also tend to want to be the ones who make our own decisions about our dating lives, without needing to constantly check in with the people we're seeing, but that isn't necessarily the case with every solo. That's more RA, I think). We can be very, very deeply and profoundly in love with someone and, at the same time, happy that they're off pursuing their life, happy to have time to ourselves, and not worried about "where this is going."

For me: Partner? No, thank you. Lover, or Lover-Friend? Yes, please. Commitment? Sure, but it depends on what we'd be committing to.

I see partnership in relationships sort of like business partnership - people standing side by side, wrapped up in the needs and goals they share, and working towards heading in a certain direction. For now, in my life, I eschew total entwinement like that but would rather be present and live each day as it comes than try to steer a relationship in a certain direction.

So, why do so many people who seek live-in partnerships, poly tribes, or so-called "kitchen table poly" think that my solo poly arrangements are not as valid as their tightly entwined relationships, just because I'm happy to see someone no more than one to three times a week and don't need daily contact? It's somewhat insulting and/or illogical to think that seeing someone every day means that relationship is more serious/meaningful/valid than mine, when I always strive to be fully present and fully invested in the time I spend with someone, which I cherish - and especially when people who live together and co-mingle finances, etc., can often be distracted from nurturing their relationships because of other obligations on their time. If I am only seeing someone once a month or once a year, my attention and focus is on him. I don't have my mind on whether a bill was paid, who fed the dog, or if he is moving with me toward some loftier place we're supposed to be together.

From Aggiesez's blog, Riding the relationship escalator (or not) :

Relationship Escalator: The default set of societal expectations for the proper conduct of intimate relationships. Progressive steps with clearly visible markers and a presumed structural goal of permanently monogamous (sexually and romantically exclusive), cohabitating marriage — legally sanctioned if possible. The social standard by which most people gauge whether a developing intimate relationship is significant, “serious,” good, healthy, committed or worth pursuing or continuing.​

I suggest you read her blog post linked above. She explains it very well, and I am glad to know she's writing a book about it, too!

You might also find these threads illuminating:
Solo poly people - what's your ideal?
Boundaries & Rules for the Single or Solo Poly Person
 
Last edited:
I'm one of those people who lives with a spouse and has other partners.

I'm also one of those people who would say that each of my other partners was/is equally as important as Hubby, and that the relationships are/were equally as committed.

Here's why it works that way for me: Relationships aren't about *what you do*. They're about *how you feel*. I could spend three days a week with someone, but if I wasn't in love with them, didn't trust them (at least as much as I can; I admit to trust issues), didn't enjoy the time, etc., then it wouldn't be a relationship to me.

That's actually how it's been--and sometimes still is--with Hubby. The trust has mostly been restored, but for a couple of years it was at a low. We live in the same household, but he barely interacted with me at all, so there was nothing to enjoy, and I didn't particularly like being around him because we were either bickering or ignoring each other.

During part of that time period, I was also with my ex-boyfriend S2. I saw S2 only once or twice a week, usually only for 3-4 hours a time though a couple of times a month we had an overnight. The *amount* of time I spent with S2 was far less than the *amount* of time I spent in the same space as Hubby. S2 and I didn't have any entwinements or entanglements. But the time I spent with him was spent fully engaged with each other, talking, snuggling, fucking, etc. When I was with him, I felt like his entire focus was on me. He knows things about me that Hubby doesn't know, because Hubby wouldn't listen when I tried to tell him, but S2 did.

To *me*, during that period of time, my relationship with S2 was *more* committed and more intimate than my marriage. There was no chance of relationship escalator with S2; we had agreed on that, partly because I was married and partly because he was just getting out of a marriage and didn't want to ride that escalator again at that point. But that didn't matter. What mattered was the love and care we gave to one another, and how we felt when we were together. Even after he asked if we could back off to being platonic, back in June, those things were still there (other than the fucking).

Unfortunately, S2 broke up with me in August. Fortunately, though, at this point, Hubby and I are in a far better place, and I feel like our commitment and intimacy have drastically improved in the past 4-5 months. He committed to change his behavior toward me after I said I couldn't continue living in a situation where I felt like we were slightly hostile roommates rather than loving "teammates," and he's stuck to that commitment thus far.

So again because I'm married, with Woody there isn't a chance of riding the relationship escalator. Right now, he's only six months past losing his wife, so he's far from ready to have another life/nesting partner anyway, but even when he is ready, it won't be me. Or Highlight. Or Stella. Because all of us are married to other people. But when I'm with Woody, we are one hundred percent *with* each other. Complete focus. Complete intimacy. Complete commitment.

Commitment isn't about living together, entangling finances, spending hours on end with one another, or anything like that. It's about opening your heart and soul to the other person, giving them what you have available to give, and making promises that you keep.

Does that help at all?

Does any of that help make it clearer?
 
KC43 said:
But when I'm with Woody, we are one hundred percent *with* each other. Complete focus. Complete intimacy. Complete commitment.

Commitment isn't about living together, entangling finances, spending hours on end with one another, or anything like that. It's about opening your heart and soul to the other person, giving them what you have available to give, and making promises that you keep.
Click to expand...

Beautifully stated, KC.
 
KC43 said:
Commitment isn't about living together, entangling finances, spending hours on end with one another, or anything like that. It's about opening your heart and soul to the other person, giving them what you have available to give, and making promises that you keep.

Does that help at all?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does help :)

It describes what I feel with my boyfriend... And also with my closest platonic friends. Chosen family, is what I call it. People who I will be there for no matter what, and who I know will be there for me.

I think I will always have a special place in my life/heart for a primary partnership. Or multiple partnerships, if I'm ever in a position to have that. I really value those - not for the social validation - but for the happiness I get from sharing a home, working toward life goals as a team, and just having someone next to me while I spend hours on end doing nothing.

I think there's a bit of a catch - 22 for me in relationships. I shy away from opening up and giving my all if I don't know that someone will be there for the long haul. But it's often my reluctance to be "all in" that prevents things from lasting :cool:

It's not that I need every relationship to end in living together... I just tend use those relationship escalator milestones as signs that something will last. Without it I do feel lost sometimes. It certainly takes MUCH longer for me to build trust and intimacy without those familiar steps. I'm lucky Dag stuck around and kept calling every day for the eight months it took me to realize he wasn't going to ghost on me and he might be more than a casual FWB ;)

Nycindie... I have read the solopoly.net blog, every word I think. I found polysingleish.com to be helpful as well, especially for someone like me who is struggling with understanding, she gives a lot more concrete examples of life in non- escalator relationships...
http://polysingleish.com/2015/04/28/navigating-non-escalator-relationships/
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm an "escalator polyamorist" since I live with my poly partner and plan to continue to do so for the long haul. But, it doesn't bother me that some people have less-involved (is that the right word?) relationships and still consider them serious. Who better knows how to characterize a relationship than the person/s who is/are in it? I'm willing to take their word, so I don't think a lot about it.

From reading this thread, I take it that a lot depends on how *present* you are when you're with the other person.
 
kdt26417 said:
I guess I'm an "escalator polyamorist" since I live with my poly partner and plan to continue to do so for the long haul. But, it doesn't bother me that some people have less-involved (is that the right word?) relationships and still consider them serious. Who better knows how to characterize a relationship than the person/s who is/are in it? I'm willing to take their word, so I don't think a lot about it.
Click to expand...

I actually do think about it a lot - not because it bothers me but because I feel like I could learn and grow by understanding it better.

I've always viewed relationships as being partnerships. I want to build something together - a shared history, a future, an "us". But sometimes in poly relationships that's not possible - or at least making it possible requires thinking outside the box.

My boyfriend and I spend a lot of time talking about "where is this going?"... I picture a future where we are more entwined with each other's friends and families... He wants us to get an apartment together so we can have our own space. I can see us doing either, or both. But then I wonder why we feel like we NEED those things.

The idea of valuing the relationship for what it IS, not where it's going, appeals to me so much. But I can't seem to get there :confused:
 
Re:
"But then I wonder why we feel like we *need* those things."
Click to expand...

I see no reason not to pursue those things if you want them, even if you don't actually *need* them. But are you wondering if you really want them?
 
GirlFromTexlahoma said:
I still can't quite wrap my head around how a relationship can feel close, committed, and intimate without a significant investment of time and energy.
Click to expand...

Well how do you define as a significant investment of time, and energy? I can feel all of those things seeing someone once or more a week, to several times a year. The time I spend with them is significant, and the time I allocate to hanging out with them is a big deal for me. I don't need to see someone every day to care about them; in fact I'd prefer to not see, or talk to them daily.

I read about solo poly people's lives and to me it sounds like being single with multiple FWBs. I know that is NOT how they experience it. There's just a disconnect in my mind - I can't grasp how someone you see once a month can feel like a actual partner.
Click to expand...
That's not at all how I'd describe my relationships. Yes, I can have FWBs, but I mostly have partners. When I'm not actually single, I'd be pretty annoyed by someone describing me as single. I have partners, and they're important to me. They're just not a most important, uber special above all else presence in my life, and it's unlikely they ever will be.

*I use partner instead of bf/gf/other. Partner is just my gender neutral title for everyone.*

I listen to people talk about their spouse and their Other Significant Other, and hear them say both relationships are equally valuable to them... Even though they live with the spouse and see the OSO a couple times a year. And again, I know that's their experience, but I can't "get" it.
Click to expand...
I can't speak on this. I don't typically view relationships as equal, but equitable. I may not view two relationships as necessarily egalitarian, but I try to invest in them in a way that's preferable to all involved. I value time spent together, so I'd want to see them more often, but if I'm happy in that regard, they don't then trump each other because I see one person more often. (They also aren't more valuable by order of inception.)

For me, the investment is what creates the feeling of being in a relationship, what takes something from casual sex, to dating or friends with benefits, to possibly a long term committed love.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by investment. I invest a great deal in my partners. I think I touched on how in the other thread.

The importance of a relationship in my life - how much I value it - tracks pretty closely with how often we talk, how much time we spend together, and how much priority we are given in each other's lives.
Click to expand...
I'm with you with everything but priority. I don't like to talk daily, but I couldn't nurture a no, or close to no contact relationship. I like to spend time together, not daily, but it's important to me.

Priority is one of those weird things that makes me think that I need to put someone above other people, or activities in my life to show them how important they are. That's not for me at all. I respect the people in my life in a way that I just couldn't really see myself doing that. I also value my time pursuing my own interests. My partners are often welcome to join, but I wouldn't like it if they wanted me to divert that energy.

Ex of prioritizing that I'm thinking of: an ex gave me first dibs on all their Friday evenings, even though they had a standing date with their friends. That wasn't OK with me at all, and I wouldn't do something like this for someone.

Those things build trust and closeness, and make me want to be open and intimate and loving with someone.
Click to expand...
Consistency builds trust with me. Honesty as well. I don't need to see someone all the time to feel close to them. Sometimes that's an isolating experience, and it doesn't even accomplish that much.

But I'm realizing that not everyone sees it that way. And I'd love to hear other perspectives on "non escalator" relationships. What builds emotional intimacy and trust? What signifies commitment? What makes certain relationships feel like partnerships while others stay casual?
Click to expand...
Decidedly covered this in the other thread. For me casual relationships have a predefined, and pre agreed upon *emotional* cap. Usually that's *just sex*, but sometimes it's a time limit if I'm dating someone who's going to move soon. Serious relationships don't have a limit set on how strongly we can feel about each other, but strong feelings don't translate to needing to becoming a unit with those people. I can care about someone, care about what's important to them, want great things for them, and if I can, I'd even help them accomplish some of their goals if possible, but I'm not interested in significantly changing my life for anyone.

Relationship escalators make me think that people are accruing enough relationship points, until they can be considered true relationships. Even more is that some titles are perceived as more important than others, and that's not how I like it.
 
kdt26417 said:
I see no reason not to pursue those things if you want them, even if you don't actually *need* them. But are you wondering if you really want them?
Click to expand...

I want them... I'm just afraid that if I get them I'll just want the next step :eek: Moving all of us in together is not an option so at some point I'm going to have to get off the escalator.
 
ICanBeStunning said:
Serious relationships don't have a limit set on how strongly we can feel about each other, but strong feelings don't translate to needing to becoming a unit with those people. I can care about someone, care about what's important to them, want great things for them, and if I can, I'd even help them accomplish some of their goals if possible, but I'm not interested in significantly changing my life for anyone.
Click to expand...

Maybe a lot of this comes down to how much we value autonomy/independence vs interdependence. My relationships - not just romantic but also with friends and family - are the part of my life I value the most. I like needing people and being needed in return. I'd much rather accomplish something with a partner than alone. Classic ESFJ ;) I have no problem changing my life to make a relationship work, as long as it's not one-sided and we both/all agree that the relationship is worth rearranging our lives for.

Relationship escalators make me think that people are accruing enough relationship points, until they can be considered true relationships. Even more is that some titles are perceived as more important than others, and that's not how I like it.
Click to expand...

I can see how it would seem that way. And for some people it's probably true. But for me, a lot the escalator type stuff is rewarding in and of itself. It's not the titles, it's the feeling of closeness I get from being involved in someone's day to day life. (Dumb example - my boyfriend and I always tell each other what we're having for lunch. And knowing that makes me feel closer to him :eek: )So honestly even "daily contact" sounds like not much to me.

I'm really starting to think this is just how I'm "wired"... Because I'm reading eloquent , logical, clear explanations of how other people experience intimacy and I understand it, but I can't imagine feeling that way.
 
WhatHappened said:
Is it possible that's because where it IS right now is not where you want it to be eventually? Maybe you want it to be more than it currently is?
Click to expand...

That's definitely part of it ... My ideal would be to see Dag in person every day... but it's not a realistic long term expectation :(
 
I started this thread assuming there was some Zen-like state that allowed people to feel completely merged with their partners without physically seeing each other very often. But I'm realizing instead that lots of folks don't need or want that sense of being completely entangled with their significant others.

It's not so much "how to make every relationship feel like a life partnership" and more "not every relationship needs to be a life partnership".

KC43's advice to look at commitment as a feeling helped, because I do feel that way about my close friends, completely committed to them all even though I see one friend every day and others once a month. It's helpful to use that as a model for how I can value relationships that don't follow the escalator model.

What I'm left with, though, is wondering if I'm cut out for poly. Because in effect I'm saying non-primary relationships are always going to feel more like fwb to me. I'm committed (in the way I'm committed to my friends), I feel love and trust and intimacy (as I do for my friends). But I will always value the nesting partnership more, because it meets the deep needs I feel for entwinement and partnership.

:confused::confused::confused:
 
124

It's fine wonder, it is fine to change your mind, and it is fine to focus on your nesting partner. This may change over time or it may not, or you may move between the two as life and circumstance permit. So many choices :)
 
Atlantis said:
It's fine wonder, it is fine to change your mind, and it is fine to focus on your nesting partner. This may change over time or it may not, or you may move between the two as life and circumstance permit. So many choices :)
Click to expand...

Yes! When I was 36 I doubt that I would have understood the concept, let alone the appeal of solo poly, but now that I'm solidly on the other side of kids and marriage and middle age, solo poly makes perfect sense. I have zero interest in a relationship escalator, yet a very strong need for a small variety of deep, loving, emotionally committed lovers who are just people that I enjoy - no need at all for "where is this going?" because where we are is perfect. I suppose that's the "Zen-like state" you're wondering about, GirlfromTexlahoma. It's very possible and deeply satisfying to have love relationships that aren't necessarily going anywhere, but just are. Some "just are" for a few months, some "just are" and continue on and on and on.
 
Atlantis and FallenAngelina, thank you :) I am very much a planner and have a hard time dealing with unknowns... Sometimes I just need to be reminded that the future is unknowable :eek:

FallenAngelina said:
no need at all for "where is this going?" because where we are is perfect. I suppose that's the "Zen-like state" you're wondering about, GirlfromTexlahoma. It's very possible and deeply satisfying to have love relationships that aren't necessarily going anywhere, but just are
Click to expand...

Yes. I so badly want to feel this. Whats funny is that in past relationships I have, I've had great lovers and FWBs and been completely satisfied with knowing those relationships would never "go anywhere". But right now I'm struggling with feeling like what I have is not enough :(

And I'm realizing that understanding how other people can enjoy relationships without doing the escalator thing - or even acknowledging that it might be what I want someday - doesn't change wanting "the next step" with this particular person.
 
I have been married for 20 years in a relationship that had us hopping on the escalator pretty much the moment we met. While I don't regret the choices I made, I am very grateful that I now have the opportunity to explore other types of relationships.
For me, the non-escalator aspect of the relationship I have with my current BF (and had with previous BF's) is one of the most difficult and most beautiful and challenging things. It's challenging because I suffer from anxiety and have severe attachment issues. A non-escalator style connection can be hard for someone who craves reassurance and affirmation. But I see this as opportunity for growth, because I do not want to be a person who is clingy and in need of constant reassurance. For me being in non-escalator style relationships helps me to be more independent, to be able to live in the moment more, to be more autonomous. These are things I want to achieve regardless of romantic relationships, too....

I definitely feel that my BF and I are committed, but it has taken about 9 months or so to really get a feeling for this. To me it means sharing important things that happen, the good and the bad, and making time and room in each others lives to see each other regularly. We have never had a set date night scheduled, yet in the 14 months we've known each other, we've seen each other once a week - the only exception being weeks that one of us was travelling.
 
Re (from GirlFromTexlahoma):
"Moving all of us in together is not an option so at some point I'm going to have to get off the escalator."
Click to expand...

Does something bad happen if you get off the escalator halfway? Like, once you get started, you can't get off?

Re (from GirlFromTexlahoma):
"What I'm left with, though, is wondering if I'm cut out for poly."
Click to expand...

I think there's such a thing as "escalator poly." As long as more than two people are involved, then it counts as (one kind of) poly as far as I'm concerned. I'm in a closed V and all three of us are counted as primary partners. So, there's one example. And we could become a closed N sometime. Not likely but certainly possible.

Re (from GirlFromTexlahoma):
"But right now I'm struggling with feeling like what I have is not enough :("
Click to expand...

That's more important than whether you "qualify as poly." Does this feeling stem from wanting more primary partners? or perhaps something else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top