Solo poly people - what's your ideal?

[Somegeezer]

[snip]...I just want you to know that not all men subscribe to gender roles or the roles of what it means to be a wife or husband. There is a large number of men out there who are willing, or even insisting that there not be roles as such unless one falls into them naturally and is comfortable because it is who they are...[/snip]

You rang? =P
I also agree with the rest of your post, redpepper. It's good to just let things happen as they happen. People always develop in a relationship at different rates too. You may be comfortable right away, but your partner/s may not be. But support them and keep being yourself and everyone will eventually settle where they want to be.

 

[bella123456]

I know with 100% confidence that not all men, or women subscribe to gender roles, in my experience it's the minority...thank goodness !

And yes RP - agree with you that it's up to the individuals to find their own path as they go along...
The problems in my marriage actually were not at all "script" based....that relationship was a whole different story really..

I hope I didn't sound like I was harsh on the concept of marriage, or settling down. I do support that, it's just not my focus or objective...for this point in my life.

Culture is an interesting point to raise...
I think the country you were born in, or live in, or the values of that culture are a huge influence. Especially for women...It is sadly the case, that your country of origin has a huge influence on the choices you can make. Or the relationships you can define within your life..
I think a woman living in america has a huge number of choices available, and a much higher level of control over her life...as opposed to say, a woman living in Indonesia..

Cultures do change over time, and individuals do have the power to change "culture". It's certainly not universal though...there's lots of places in the world where it is much, much, harder to change cultural values and biases...particularly for females, who continue to suffer within many cultures.
Not to mention the fact that acting outside cultural values can be pretty dangerous in some cultures....particularly for women. I don't feel we can talk about changing culture in general terms...as there are thousands of cultures around the world..each with their own pitfalls and strengths..

 

[redpepper]

I think the country you were born in, or live in, or the values of that culture are a huge influence. Especially for women...It is sadly the case, that your country of origin has a huge influence on the choices you can make. Or the relationships you can define within your life..
I think a woman living in america has a huge number of choices available, and a much higher level of control over her life...as opposed to say, a woman living in Indonesia..

Cultures do change over time, and individuals do have the power to change "culture". It's certainly not universal though...there's lots of places in the world where it is much, much, harder to change cultural values and biases...particularly for females, who continue to suffer within many cultures.
Not to mention the fact that acting outside cultural values can be pretty dangerous in some cultures....particularly for women. I don't feel we can talk about changing culture in general terms...as there are thousands of cultures around the world..each with their own pitfalls and strengths..

Amen to all of this... I think I am very fortunate to even have a choice. I think this everyday actually. Even to have this discussion and be able to be on this forum in comparison to other women in the world. I find it so important to never forget that.

I don't think that other women in other cultures would necessarily want what I have created in my life, but I do think that a lot of women would find it a blessing to have the ability and freedom to make ANY choice for themselves and that is what I am talking about here.

 

[bella123456]

I don't think that other women in other cultures would necessarily want what I have created in my life, but I do think that a lot of women would find it a blessing to have the ability and freedom to make ANY choice for themselves and that is what I am talking about here.

Perhaps not...but being able to make meaningful connections with multiple people is universal I would think. Taking that to actually wanting what you have created would potentially be limited by cultural influences...ie, In some cultures it would almost be impossible to have the want develop, the meaningful connections would still happen to be sure - just not acted upon...which is sad. So, if cultures change...people's wants would change overtime. On a different level, we see this as many countries develop...the wants of consumers change with exposure to changing economic conditions and living standards etc. People start to want different things as the opportunity to have them emerges...

Here's to freedom of choice !! Especially to that emerging within cultures where it may currently be more limited !

Now well off topic...sorry. Friendly words between one red head and another

 

[redpepper]

In some cultures it would almost be impossible to have the want develop, the meaningful connections would still happen to be sure - just not acted upon...which is sad. So, if cultures change...people's wants would change overtime. On a different level, we see this as many countries develop...the wants of consumers change with exposure to changing economic conditions and living standards etc. People start to want different things as the opportunity to have them emerges...

Here's to freedom of choice !! Especially to that emerging within cultures where it may currently be more limited !

here here!

 

[idealist]

Mycindie,
Okay.....I do like the term solo poly..... I was calling myself "single" and Redpepper had mentioned that it really didn't sound right considering how many partners I have.
Anyway- for me, I have created my desired situation and it's taken less than a year since I first decided to create a poly lifestyle.
I have a primary male partner who is also solo. He has a secondary female partner.
I have a secondary male partner. He is married and his wife has a secondary partner.
And now......because I am bisexual and desire a female partner, I have a solo lesbian female partner!!!!!
YAY!!!
Peace and Love,
Idealist

 

[CloudsLater]

I'm not solo--- I'm in a serious relationship with one other person, and I've been in a variety of poly relationships in various capacities in the past.

A tribe is an ideal for both me and my partner. We want friends and lovers around us to and for support. I personally don't distinguish terribly much between friends and lovers. I'd like to have a big house with a lot of people in it to love.

This sounds a lot like my ideal...

I seem to like the idea of calling all relationships 'friendships', and even if not everyone lives together (though that idea is appealing for so many reasons, and maybe sometime I'll post a rant about how badly cities are designed...) people would get together for various fun times.

There are many things about triads and all those small groups that can be nice, but I tend to like groups of friends that are a bit larger. But finding a handful of poly people might not be so easy.

I recently briefly read about Relationship Anarchy, and a lot of it fit with ideas I had been thinking about.

 

[nycindie]

Someone resurrected another thread about "your ideal relationship" and so I thought about this one, which I started for solos. Since posting my thoughts on it last year, my "ideal" hasn't changed much:

. . . to remain independent, living on my own, and to have two to four long-term boyfriends whom I see at varying frequency depending on how involved/invested we are. Like maybe one of them would be someone I see very infrequently for romantic trips or something, and others would be more involved and familiar with my day-to-day life.

I still have no interest in cohabiting with anyone else, as I have really begun to enjoy my apartment and being on my own. I am more open to being involved with a married poly guy than I was back in November, since having met my latest paramour, Burnsy. The caveat would be that I would not want to get involved with a married man who did not have as healthy or stable a relationship, or the kind of approach to poly, as Burnsy and his wife do. I really don't want the drama, no matter how drawn I am to someone, of dealing with a couple in an ailing marriage and all their baggage.

I definitely want more than two steady lovers, but I really don't know why. Having two just doesn't seem like enough for some reason, LOL.

There's this old image in my head, I think from reading Cosmo as a teen or seeing some made-for-TV movie, of an independent woman with steady lovers from all over the world, living in her totally awesome apartment and doing whatever the fuck she wants with her life without anyone else to answer to. I keep seeing this scene in my head where she answers the doorbell and ushers one lover in as another leaves, and everyone's totally cool about it. All her lovers are very different from each other -- maybe one is well-heeled and polished, another is blue-collar, while another is younger and just starting out. She goes with one to museums, galleries, and fancy restaurants, with another to picnics and football games, while another cooks for her at home. The lovemaking is different and exciting with each of them, in their own unique ways, and the woman is happy with herself and her life.

I want to be that woman, but the sad thing is that she's about 20 years younger in my head than I actually am. Sometimes I feel like I've missed the boat and have very little time left to make this all a reality. <sigh>

I thought this thread would also be a good place to re-post parts of some quotes about being poly and solo, that I had added to my blog thread awhile back:

From a blogger named Paradox:

"It's kind of a rare thing to find someone who's polyamorous and single. There are far more halves-of-couples and determined bachelors (of all genders). Not as many folks are single in the "more traditional" sense of not being in a partnership and looking for one.

But that's what I am: poly and single. I'm not in a committed relationship, not in a couple, but I want to be. I want a primary partner. It is, in fact, near the top of my priority list. I came to this polyamory thing on my own, not as part of my journey with anyone specific, and I'm looking for someone to share it with.

That's not to say that I'm trying to force every relationship into a primary space. I strongly believe in letting things develop organically and letting every relationship grow into a place that feels comfortable. That's one of the major benefits of polyamory: I can have different relationships at different levels and it's all okay. I am hoping, though, that one of my relationships turns more serious, and I'm ready to nurture anything that goes in that direction. I want to fall in love.

I think these desires give more depth to my meaning of the word "single." When I have the option of saying I'm a solo polyamorist and instead choose to say I'm single, it's more meaningful. I'm not just saying "I'm not in a relationship with anyone right now," I'm saying "I'm looking for a serious relationship along with the other less serious relationships I already have." Which is different. That's all."

http://www.papercutsandplastic.com/2010/09/poly-and-single.html​

I will interject here with a note: When I first posted that to my blog, GroundedSpirit responded that her viewpoint "seems little more than an attempt to relabel the mono model with minor modification." Which is a good point. Her post was the one with which I least identified, perhaps due to her need for a primary. I don't want one main squeeze, or any kind of hierarchical structure. I want to consider all my steady lovers equally, even those who are less frequently in my life (excluding any solely sexual flings).

Continued:

At Cunning Minx's FB page, "Poly Weekly Hooligans," Vicky wrote :

"I find it really difficult to know when I'm single. I'm seeing different people on a casual and/or secondary basis. What I find annoying is how everyone tries to pair me up with partners who seem to be available (for a primary relationship). I also find annoying how people seem to consider that my secondary relationships aren't "real" relationships . . . [and] that most of the poly material (reading or other kinds) is geared towards people in 1 primary relationship - such as in "opening up your relationship, etc." There's very little on how to be a secondary, and extremely little on how to be a secondary to someone who hasn't got a primary! There's nothing on jealousy towards people who are not your primaries, and so on.

. . . I much prefer the network kind of relationship style, but find it quite hard because others seem not to feel the same way I do and end up pairing and becoming something very similar to monogamous-but-swinger, if not exactly just that.

What I enjoy: being able to see a lot of people without having to discuss or agree. I have my freedom and any coming together goes from there and from an acceptance of who I am. I also make personal plans on an individual basis. I love my network. They're great people. I enjoy the varying degrees of intimacy that change in time and depending on circumstance and how we can still be close even when we're not that intimate anymore. I think what I most enjoy about being single is being seen as an individual rather than someone's partner and being able to do things and decide things on my own rather than jointly, even if I do take other people into account when taking them."

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=27069609091&topic=5255​

The last paragraph from Vicky is very closely aligned to what would feel right for me. . . . Later, I found a post about not wanting a primary at all from this blogger, Sam :

". . . I don't actually want a primary partner. I like being independent. I like traveling and embarking upon spontaneous activities without having to run it by another . . . I enjoy social situations and solitude equally. (In that same respect, being that I am focused on other things, I wouldn't be able to offer 100% of myself to that person. They would no doubt feel something lacking . . . I don't feel "incomplete" without a significant other...quite the opposite. I feel more complete without a primary!

I don't feel the NEED to . . . be a "we" or an "us". This is a strange and frightening concept for some . . . I want to be involved with someone because I want to be there...not because I feel like I have to be there (and vice versa)."

http://getasammy.blogspot.com/2010/04/poly-identity-ie-ur-doing-it-wrong.html​

From Samantha Fraser, at "Not Your Mother's Playground" :

". . . I have no partner, primary or otherwise. I have lovers (some long-term, some short-term, some occasional), and I have people I care for (some on a very deep level, some more casually), but I do not have anyone that I would call a boyfriend / girlfriend, I do not live with anyone, and I am not married.

From a dating aspect. . . I am open & completely upfront about being poly and my poly lifestyle; . . . everyone I become involved with (or may become involved with) is 100% aware of who I am from the very beginning, and they have a choice as to whether or not they wish to become part of this lifestyle . . . Sometimes this honesty has resulted in rejection, but it’s only fair that I tell the truth from the get-go.

. . . Advantages of Being Poly & Single

• I have no partner to answer to, and therefore feel as if I have more freedom. Of course I respect my lovers & the relationships I have with them, and there are absolutely still negotiations to be done, but . . . there is no primary or boyfriend/girlfriend that I must account my actions to. I can date or have relations with anyone or as many people as I want, and the only person’s opinion I need be concerned with is my own. (Safer sex is always practiced, as it should be in any type of relationship, particularly where multiple partners are involved.)
  
• I’m already ‘out’ and open about my status, so I can avoid the (often painful) process of coming out as a couple. (I also get to avoid the annoying ‘But HOW does an open/poly relationship work?’
  
• By identifying as a single poly female, holy cats! Have I ever become popular! . . . maybe some folks are equating ‘single poly female’ with ‘fucks everything that walks’ (which I don’t, by the way-but I could if I wanted to!)…but oh boy, did my dating life ever flourish when I came out publicly. Up until recently, I’d never dated this much in my entire adult life – and damned if I’m not having a helluva lot of fun doing it."

http://notyourmothersplayground.com/2010/03/guest-post-poly-and-single/​

 

[Ariakas]

I have to say this seems to be a prevailing thought on every poly board I am on right now. Idealistic poly, however its phrased, seems to be a hot topic. Ironically one that has been on my mind a lot as well.

 

[nycindie]

Every now and then I revisit this thread to read what other solo poly people want. Recently, Opalescent posted this on another thread:

. . . I've learned that men, bless their hearts, are easy. There are scores and scores of men out there who would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to be your recreational plaything who are not married or committed, or, if they are, their wife/SO is hip, onboard, and totally down with the situation. In fact, she would love to have you over for tea and girl talk. (Ok, I exaggerate about the tea part.) In fact, to get interest, all you have to do is sign up on an online dating site as "female". Seriously, that's it. You will have no trouble finding potential casual sex partners among men.

I've been thinking about this lately. My "ideal poly situation" hasn't changed. Flying solo, I still want to live independently, and I fantasize about having three to four boyfriends who are not just casual flings but committed lovers with whom I can share my life passionately (thanks, SourGirl, for your comments in another thread that reminded me of the "passion" part).

However, it isn't as easy to find men who will hear me say I want non-exclusivity and be willing to commit to something deeper than just a casual and primarily sexual relationship. I understand that that may be a stage to move through before getting to a commitment, and I don't see the need to ask for a commitment right away, nor to set aside the need for companionship and sex until that happens for me, but it does get frustrating at times. I do not, however, see the need to make any adjustments to the ideal I seek. I just need to be patient that it will happen for me some day, and not give in to feeling defeated.

 

[serialmonogamist]

Cultures do change over time, and individuals do have the power to change "culture". It's certainly not universal though...there's lots of places in the world where it is much, much, harder to change cultural values and biases...particularly for females, who continue to suffer within many cultures.
Not to mention the fact that acting outside cultural values can be pretty dangerous in some cultures....particularly for women. I don't feel we can talk about changing culture in general terms...as there are thousands of cultures around the world..each with their own pitfalls and strengths..

Sometimes changing culture is as simple (or difficult) as individual migration. The problem is that the 'free-est' cultures are often also the most strongly protected against migration. I'm sure there's a social-cultural logic to that but that's a topic for another discussion.

 

[BlackUnicorn]

Musings

Yay for resurrections!

Being too young to have participated in the first round(s) of this thread, I'll seize the opportunity to muse right now.

I started out as solo poly, looking for a triad on a secondary basis with the possibility of moving "up in the hierarchy" or living together later. I didn't really desire a primary connection before I formed a secondary one with a man who already had his primary and lived far far away besides. Or maybe primary is the wrong word here - what I didn't want was to be the bitter and neglected, and thought (somewhat incorrectly) that I could fill the void of one relationship with another.

Primary thing happened really accidentally for me (dating one guy -> threesome with a girl he used to date -> break-up with the guy -> one-on-one dates with the girl -> OMG she's nice -> OMG we're a couple now -> OMG let's move in together ). I don't really resonate with the whole opening up and transition from mono to poly thing, either. What about people who started out their primary/whatever relationship with no period of monogamy in the beginning? Who got into an open relationship from the start, having first dated non-monogamously?

I have a very firm idea of not meddling with her connections, whatever they may be. She went; "But of course you need to meddle if my other relationships are affecting our relationship in a negative way!". I don't know what to make of this. Is there a hierachy where, if either feels another connection affects the primary relationship in the wrong way, they have veto rights (not to necessarily end the secondary relationship, but to demand it take a back seat)? Or is the spirit of true openness one where you take what you are offered from the "primary" relationship, and its exclusivity or uniqueness is no more worth protecting than that of any other connection?

Steering happily off-topic here. But I feel it's a deeper issue of are we two solo poly individuals who have come together for now or are we something more, an institution, a couple now?

 

[MsKittie]

"you need to meddle if my other relationships are affecting our relationship in a negative way"


I agree with her. Meddling in the sense of speaking up, making your feelings, concerns known, and if need be put your foot down.

Not sure if your considered a primary, if you are; even more reason to state your feelings on everything.

 

[MsKittie]

It can happen. Perhaps, not very often but it does. We are in the exact scenario you long for. We didn't set out looking for a set scenario. We actually thought we'd up up in a vee, but the gentleman I ended up dating was already in a 10 year poly relationship with his partner..who *her) had yet another (poly)partner when they started( they are now since gone) So, they were well estblished poly couple who themselves only thought theyd be Vee also. Ironic how life turns out.

Hi, nycindie. I consider myself a solo poly person. If I had to define my current relationship type, it would be viewed as a vee with me and the wife of my partner being close to the very top of the legs but I don't choose to label many things. I am in a relationship with a married man whose wife is fully aware. I, like you, am not interested in getting married, as it is defined in this society,(I feel it is unfair to your partners if you know you live a multi lifestyle) unless there comes a time where I can marry more than one person. My kids are 17 and 11 (teen lives with me) so I am not interested in having anymore. I, too, enjoy my own personal space and, though, I would consider investing in a single place with my partners (whenever that becomes plural), I am also just as content living separately.

Currently, my ideal relationship would probably consist of four people. I, along with my two male partners, would be primary in each other's lives (men don't necessarily have to be primary to each other but I would definitely condone it) and my one female partner would be secondary. I would have regular interaction with both my male partners and probably weekly to biweekly interaction with my female partner who may or may not be permanently attached outside of our relationship and may or may not regularly interact with one of my male primaries. This committed poly quad would also have extended boundaries where we are open to sexual interaction with others but reserve our emotional attachments to each other. Yea...I know it sounds like a fairytale.

 

[nycindie]

Solo Polyamorists

Staying on the topic of solo poly people and their ideals...

I just did a cursory look around the 'net and it seems that a person practicing solo poly is generally understood to be someone who does not have primary partners, or for whom all partners are equally important, and does not cohabit with them. I found these two quotes by Tristan Taormino, (her book Opening Up is where I first found the term):

"In American culture, monogamy isn’t the only norm when it comes to relationships; it’s expected that everyone wants to and should be part of a couple. The fact of the matter is that some people who identify as non-monogamous or polyamorous prefer not to be in a “partnered” relationship, however they define that for themselves. In general, people who practice solo polyamory may date and have non-primary partners, but they don’t want to co-habit, mingle finances and resources, raise children, or make important life decisions with a partner."​

and:

"Just as polyamory flies in the face of the traditional pairing model, choosing to be a non-primary partner contradicts all the rhetoric we learn about finding "the one," making a commitment, and being the most important person in someone's life. Choosing to be farther down on the food chain immediately has people thinking you have commitment issues, low self-esteem, or something else wrong with you. In fact, these critiques echo comments often made about the "mistress" in a cheating relationship, but the difference here is a big one: choice. While the mistress may dream of or even be promised that she'll become Girl Number One, the non-primary person knows where he or she stands in someone's life and is content there. The non-primary folks I know either don't want to be anyone's primary because of other priorities in their life or, like Sarah, want multiple relationships, some of which are with people who already have a primary partner.

For some folks, there is no food chain: They eschew the concept of primary/non-primary altogether because they don't believe in the hierarchy it implies. "I'm in two relationships, and I consider them both equally important," says Cate, a San Francisco–based filmmaker. "A mother doesn't consider one of her children to be the primary child, does she?" Sarah counters, "Eventually someone has to be on top because we will be put in a position where we have to choose where our energy is going to go. If [people who reject a hierarchical model] can make that work for them, it's great. In my world, at some point you have to decide." Penny says, "We think of each relationship as different. I don't know if non-primary is the word I would use, but there is no other word, so it's like the default." "​

Thoughts?

 

[BlackUnicorn]

"I'm in two relationships, and I consider them both equally important," says Cate, a San Francisco–based filmmaker. "A mother doesn't consider one of her children to be the primary child, does she?" Sarah counters, "Eventually someone has to be on top because we will be put in a position where we have to choose where our energy is going to go. If [people who reject a hierarchical model] can make that work for them, it's great. In my world, at some point you have to decide." Penny says, "We think of each relationship as different. I don't know if non-primary is the word I would use, but there is no other word, so it's like the default."​

Thoughts?

I can imagine a situation where one of the siblings would have a serious and permanent health condition or other special needs, and they would claim a large part of the parents' energy and time, maybe leaving the other kids feeling a bit neglected at times. But that could hardly be framed as having a "primary" kid.

To stretch the kid metaphor a bit wider, maybe you could view your partners not on a hierarchy basis but as having different needs for the type and amount of interaction with you, where some would be content with biweekly dates with no overnights and others would want to wake up next to you on as many mornings as possible?

 

[nycindie]

. . . maybe you could view your partners not on a hierarchy basis but as having different needs for the type and amount of interaction with you . . .

Well, of course people have differing needs. I think that only stands to reason.

 

[BlackUnicorn]

Well, of course people have differing needs. I think that only stands to reason.

The whole idea of solo poly people who are happy to remain so sort of defies the idea that absolutely everyone needs a steady primary partner to cohabit with.

 

[nycindie]

Yep, that's the point! At least, for me it is.

 

[nycindie]

I hope more unattached, solo poly people share on this thread! There comes a saturation point for me, every now and then, where I can't read anymore about married couples opening up their relationship. Not that I can't empathize or offer helpful feedback, but I need to hear more from others whose situations are closer to mine and to whom I can relate a little more.

So, here's a shout-out to solo poly peeps!

What has been your experience in trying to meet potential partners? How separately do you keep your relationships? What do you see are the biggest benefits from being solo and, if applicable, not having designations of primary, secondary, etc.?