Restless heart syndrome: cause or effect?

dingedheart said:
How am I disingenuous?
Click to expand...

This:

- "deviant" is a heavily charged word, whether it's correct or not. Using the N-word technically means people who are black too, not white or anything else, but it's pejorative. Same thing with the F-word and gays. And of course "deviant" has been used for gay people too, and while it's also technically true for them, I doubt they appreciate it any more than we do.
Either you knew what the word implied or you didn't. If you did not know, when told so, the normal thing to do was to profusely apologise for using such a horrible word without realising so. Instead, you backed up that you are technically right, which leads me to believe you knew what you were saying from the start..

I think you are being verbally manipulative in a big way right now.
 
Last edited:
I have not looked up the word in the Oxford Dictionary, or any other source, as of yet, so I wasn't going on some calculating textbook response to piss people off. It just seemed the best word to describe the situation at the time (IN THOSE EARLY DISCUSSIONS WITH MY WIFE). I'm very surprised we didn't have the exact same fight over the use of this word. We often got into debates about a specific word or phrase. My understanding was/is, if you go to extreme lengths to hide or conceal an activity that the overwhelming majority find objectionable, then it would be consider deviant. In my background, I don't have any emotional or negative views of the word.

I use on occasion indirect forms of the word-- i.e., "you cannot deviate from the standard procedure." I also jokingly refer to the band of goof balls my son belongs to as deviants or delinquents. It usually gets a laugh. But both are wrong. They are not either. They are just young boys being young boys. I never thought rapist, molester, etc. Those are criminal acts, not a lifestyle.

Lastly, I have very little contact with alternative lifestyle participants (see? I'm learning) to know what clinical words are too heavily charged.

To all that were offended, that was not my intention. SORRY.

That being said, I understand why one would prefer the softer, kinder version. But alternative lifestyle just doesn't accurately describe the situation. It could mean being a vegetarian, or living without electricity, which have no societal problems. Nobody hides the fact that they are a vegetarian, except at the beef producers' convention.

What word would fit best here? I can't think of one off the top of my head.

Also, I would add I was counting myself within the group.

I think I should refrain from starting threads...
 
Well, I know people who hide the fact they're vegetarian and people who don't hide the fact they're poly. I don't think it's about hiding anything. It's alternative because it's not what is naturally assumed. You have to come out about it, and depending on the person, it can be badly received.

I've had people being more prejudiced against my being a vegetarian than polyamorous, so I wouldn't say one is more accepted than the other, as a rule. It really depends on the person.

I appreciate the apology, at any rate...
 
Hi, dinged. Thanks for the PM. I don't generally tackle threads that are so far advanced, but have gone back and read your original post. This is a very good topic, and for anyone who hasn't read that post, I would recommend it. I haven't read the other comments, so sorry if I'm repeating.

What you described is definitely a pattern. I don't think anyone can deny it. It is, however, not always the pattern. It is not the pattern of my current relationship, because my partner was poly from the get-go. (That has its own set of challenges.)

Ironically, it was my pattern in my marriage, so I always wonder if I'm getting a nice dose of karma in this relationship. I agree that many of the people who use polyamory to hang on to an old partner and introduce new ones may not be poly at all. With my new partner I would love to be monogamous.

I don't think you can force a person who has this RH syndrome to buckle under and give monogamy another go. It wouldn't have worked for me, because after 28 years, I felt I was done trying. I felt the years were slipping away, and with them, my chances of ever experiencing a healthy loving relationship. I think it was only when I reached this point (and it was pretty messy, I literally could not stop crying for weeks, even on medication), that my husband really took me seriously, looked at himself and said, "You're right. I have never allowed myself to open up to you fully, because..." Unfortunately, it was just too late.

I believe that if he had been strong enough to hang in there with me, allowed me to dance the dance that I so desperately needed, and done some work on himself, we may have made it. Instead, he tried to force me by putting on the financial screws, which was his pattern of control. Or maybe we wouldn't have made it. Maybe I would have gone from partner to partner, with my own ego intact, and never learned the hard lessons that I have by leaving the safety of the marriage and putting my heart and soul into a relationship which is very loving and very healthy, even if he is poly.

I haven't kept up with your situation, but it seems you have let your wife dance her dance and are still feeling resentful and hurt. I don't think things like this can be mended with feelings like those going unresolved. Maybe you need a trial separation? Maybe you both need to look at the specifics of your relationship that aren't working? Are you in counselling, not for polyamory, but for your own relationship?

Even though your wife is doing what she's doing, if you want to give your marriage a chance, you both need to work on that, not just on her being poly (whether she really is or isn't). If she refuses to work on your relationship, I would go for the trial separation.
 
Wow, this thread hits home! I am the mono and bucking the poly lifestyle every step of the way. But I know that is due to being raised on conventional thinking of how a marriage works. I also have MAJOR jealousy issues, fear of the unknown, etc. I am trying to understand this, so that our marriage can remain intact, but not exactly sure if this is how I want to live my life, either.

It's very confusing and heart wrenching. We are currently in this lifestyle, but I don't like it at all. He has a GF, and every time he goes to see her, I feel like a piece of my heart crumbles. So I don't know. Still trying to understand.
 
MorningTwilight said:
Generally, yes. Certainly, there are individuals who are naturally monogamous, and when two of them meet, they might be able to live out the fairytale. I would offer, however, given that divorce and infidelity rates are what they are, that naturally monogamous people are about as common in the population as left-handed people.* MT
Click to expand...

Or they're both naturally monogamous but personally incompatible with each other for the long-term.

Not that I mind being considered "uncommon," but still... :D
 
YouAreHere said:
Or they're both naturally monogamous, but personally incompatible with each other for the long-term.

Not that I mind being considered "uncommon," but still... :D
Click to expand...

Great point. People here look at the infidelity rate and the divorce rate as evidence for polyamory, when, in fact, money, personal habits (addictions, abuse, etc.), general incompatibility are the leading causes for divorce. Once this disconnect occurs, then the relationship is vulnerable to infidelity. Most times, the infidelity is treated as the symptom of something larger.
 
dingedheart said:
Great point. People here look at the infidelity and divorce rates as evidence for polyamory, when in fact, money, personal habits (addictions, abuse, etc.), general incompatibility are the leading causes for divorce. Once this disconnect occurs, then the relationship is vulnerable to infidelity. Most times, the infidelity is treated as the symptom of something larger.
Click to expand...

I tend to get defensive when I come across folks who paint monogamy itself as stifling and abusive ("One True Wayers" and proselytizers drive me bananas, and, to me, are just as closed-minded as those they deride for being the same). Right now, I'm having a difference in philosophy with my partner's OSO (although we haven't really talked about it much) in that she eschews monogamy because she felt stifled by it.

To which I counter, well, if you have a stifling partner, what does the relationship structure matter? If your partner doesn't allow you space that you need, then you're still dealing with a personal incompatibility.

I agree that a stifling partner would be less inclined to even be in a polyamorous relationship, but the relationship structure seems to be more of an effect than the cause, in this case, correlation not implying causality and all that. :)

(Boy, I love philosophizing after lunch!)
 
What's her definition of stifling? What's her history in this? Is she married? Does she have a primary relationship?
 
dingedheart said:
What's her definition of stifling? What's her history in this? Is she married? Does she have a primary relationship?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that this is my interpretation of what she's told me, or said to others. I'm sure the "game of telephone" applies.

She was once married, about a decade back. She found her husband/marriage stifling, in that she felt she lost herself to make him happy, that she did not have the "alone time" she wanted to pursue her interests (non-romantic), that he basically smothered her.

They divorced. She was single for a number of years, got introduced to the concept of polyamory, and not long after, started a relationship with our current partner. We are probably both co-primaries, for lack of a better term. He currently splits his time between two separate homes.

My take on this: yes, a polyamorous relationship lends itself to having more alone time for you, if you do not have multiple partners. Yes, a smothering partner is probably not going to want their love to be non-monogamous. Therefore, anyone willing to get into a polyamorous relationship may be a bit less "stifling" to begin with.

So, despite her belief that marriage and monogamy is stifling, I don't believe it's the fault of monogamy or marriage itself as an institution, but can be blamed on personal incompatibilities with the person you choose as a partner. A controlling partner can certainly (mis)use marriage as a tool in order to BE controlling. She had a husband who wouldn't give her any time to herself. A different husband may have given her the freedom she desired to pursue her other interests within the context of a monogamous marriage.

Anyhoo... I find the difference in perception (and possibly semantics) interesting, although I do get tired of "monogamy is [insert negative word here]" that I hear from time to time.
 
So what you're saying is similar. It's a question of cause or effect. In both your cases, or perhaps all three of you, the causes of the divorces were not a restless heart, but a general loss of connection or incompatibility on other topics aside from romance. If romance did occur, it was to replace that which was lost, not the cause, but the effect.
 
dingedheart said:
So what you're saying is similar. It's a question of cause an or effect. In both your cases, or perhaps all three of you, the causes of the divorces were not a restless heart, but a general loss of connection or incompatibility on other topics aside from romance. If romance did occur, it was to replace that which was lost, not the cause, but the effect.
Click to expand...

Yes, although in my metamour's case, she didn't have a restless heart as much as she felt stifled. She has stated that she chose polyamory (rather than feeling wired that way) because she doesn't want to feel stifled again (although this is still my interpretation of what she said to me and may be off...). Not quite on the original topic. I think I derailed you with the "Is it personal incompatibility or monogamy that's to blame?" discussion.
 
Zero. She has been dating on and off, however.
 
What are the living arrangements for all of you in this?

Legally, all of you are single, right?

She dating so one could argue continuous restless heart, or not?

Is this the same factor for building larger constellations, continually adding or changing partners? Or would that be more NRE junkies?
 
Well, since I only know what she tells me, I'm not going to argue anything with respect to her point of view. But yes, all single. My partner, the hinge of the vee, travels back and forth between locations - one with her, one with me.
 
How old are your kids? What do they know about this? What do they think about the split?

Does he actually live in both places, have stuff, clothes, furniture, etc., pay half of both?
 
Momma Bear is going to pass on the kids' questions (sorry, DH), but as for the living arrangements, he is splitting time between both locations, and it's a work in progress. Curious as to how the questions fit into the thread...
 
My thoughts and questions came from thinking about lives enmeshed, interwoven full time, part time and, if that could facilitate the adding of partners or hinder it. And if restless heart syndrome does exist, could such factors play a part in a few years down the road? Would it be easier to change the dynamic?

The question about the kids was an extension of that. Really young kids might not notice, care, or get attached in a step-parent type situation. The role and time spent with your bf and its part-time nature and their acceptance or annoyance over this situation. Older teenage kids might have extreme reactions from both sides of the spectrum. All the predictable stuff that goes along with the different age brackets of kids.

Also curiosity. I was thinking that it could get expensive for him. 2 dwellings, stuff at each, maintenance, etc. I thought it might cost the same or even less. That's all.

Plus it's my thread and it died long ago. No one else will really care. :) It's just you and me talking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top