Still a bit unsure if my beliefs/views make me polyamory - help

[CED]

Hello forum,

I am still very new here and have been reading around quite a few different posts but admittedly have not began reading any of the listed resources/books that others mention in the threads. I was hoping it was OK to still post my questions as a newcover but if not I'll educate myself more and then post later I suppose. So anyway, my 2 questions.

1) I've never been familiar with the exact term "polyamory" until some friends of mine linked me to an article that was written that they said matched my views that I had more or less developed on my own from just making sense of what I had seen around me as far as others failed relationships, marriages, and my own thinking for what made the most sense. I'm pretty newbie in general but I always figured infidelity was the leading reason most marriages/relationships can end up ruined, even in situations where the couples love one another. I also always assumed that even in monogamous relationships the % of people being unfaithful is quite high.

Since I've always been a pretty emotionally stable and controlled person I figured a different approach that had a higher likelihood for a sustainable situation/relationship was if both parties could just allow and accept casual, discreet, sexual acts with people (since you can't stop someone from cheating if they want to anyway) as long as they were still emotionally committed to only their spouse. Ideally the way it would play out is the same as any monogamous couple except casual sex is allowed discreetly and both parties have to be honest about whether they are developing feelings for someone else. Is this a common form of polyamory? I can see from reading the threads that different couples have different rules, but was just wondering if rules that allow for both couples to engage in strictly physical acts, without strong emotional ties was a common form of polyamory, and how this setup does vs a setup that allows for multiple emotional commitments? I understand of course that the same way someone can cheat physically and hide it because they don't want to lose their partner, they can also cheat emotionally and hide it because they don't want to lose their partner, but a wider range for what's acceptable can increase the chances of making it work if that aspect is taken off the table.

2) This sort of ties in with my first question -- I felt that if the male/female are allowed to commit emotionally that it has a higher likelihood of affecting the emotional connection with the current/previous partner. My current situation is that my girlfriend has greed to trying an open relationship (I expressed that this was what I wanted from our first date since I don't want to mislead anyone) but she says she can only have sex with a guy if she has an emotional connection with him, whereas I on the other hand can very often have casual sex without any deep connections. We've already discussed it and she's allowed to engage in casual sex as well but it feels like she'd be at high risk of breaking the rules since by her own admission she can't do physical only encounters. How would this work? Obviously if she isn't allowed to do what I'm doing then it creates built up resentment, so I'm not sure how this is usually handled. Would it only require the partner to also be OK with strictly physical sex?

 

[GreenAcres]

What you are talking about isn't really polyamory, it's more like swinging. The word "polyamory" itself literally means many/more than one/plural loving relationships.

You'll find that most experienced polyamorists will tell you that trying to build rules about feelings for others won't really work in a poly or "open"context, and they're right. You cannot "legislate" emotions, and tryingn results in a whole lot of mess. Swingers tend to get around this by setting up rules like they can only meet with partners a certain number of times, or together, etc. This sounds like it won't work for your girlfriend, since she needs a more emotional connection to desire sex.

I'd really recommend the book "Opening up," and possibly "The Ethical Slut" to learn more about poly.

 

[IndieSolo]

I would like to point out that the scenarios and questions you posted are very couple-centric; that is, as if poly is always about a couple branching out into having other relationships and how to protect that couple. There are lots of single people practicing poly as a Solo. Besides, if you think about it, the idea of a "poly couple" is sort of an oxymoron, since it's about more than two people.

. . . Ideally the way it would play out is the same as any monogamous couple except casual sex is allowed discreetly and both parties have to be honest about whether they are developing feelings for someone else. Is this a common form of polyamory? I can see from reading the threads that different couples have different rules, but was just wondering if rules that allow for both couples to engage in strictly physical acts, without strong emotional ties was a common form of polyamory, and how this setup does vs a setup that allows for multiple emotional commitments?

Poly = "many" + Amory = "love. Polyamory is the practice of having, or desire to have, multiple loving relationships, with full knowledge and consent of all involved. That is all.

People come up with all sorts of ridiculous rules for their partners to adhere to, but people who approach relationships with maturity, kindness, and consideration don't need rules. Personal boundaries, however, which you establish for yourself regarding what you are comfortable with, are okay.

So, since polyamory has a focus on allowing love in multiple relationships, usually the kind of consensual non-monogamy that disallows emotional involvement is more considered swinging or "open" and not poly - although some polyfolk will have a combination of both in their lives.

Why does it have to be discreet? Since poly is also about full knowledge and consent, usually DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) arrangements are frowned upon, but they work for some - although DADT/"discreet" liaisons can make things much more problematic inmost cases.

Personally, I think people should not embark on practicing polyamory if they can't handle knowing, acknowledging, or hearing about a partner's other partners. I mean, grow up already, you know?

I felt that if the male/female are allowed to commit emotionally that it has a higher likelihood of affecting the emotional connection with the current/previous partner.

And so what if it does? Everything in a person's life is part and parcel of what affects their relationships. Your relationship is never happening in a vacuum.

. . . she says she can only have sex with a guy if she has an emotional connection with him, whereas I on the other hand can very often have casual sex without any deep connections. We've already discussed it and she's allowed to engage in casual sex as well but it feels like she'd be at high risk of breaking the rules since by her own admission she can't do physical only encounters. How would this work? Obviously if she isn't allowed to do what I'm doing then it creates built up resentment, so I'm not sure how this is usually handled. Would it only require the partner to also be OK with strictly physical sex?

One person in a relationship is not the boss of the other. No one is "allowing" a partner anything. Consent in poly means you consent to be a part of a polyamorous situation - in other words, YOU consent to YOUR involvement, even if you want to remain monogamous. You are not giving anyone permission because another person's sexuality and love do not belong to you, and permission is not yours to give. Everyone is an adult, right? Each of you chooses how you want to live your lives. If you say you want to practice non-monogamy and only want casual no-strings sex with others, and she says she wants to practice non-monogamy but wants polyamory where feelings can develop, each of you has the right to go for what you want and should not restrict the other. If you can't be with her if she has feelings for someone else, you are not compatible and perhaps should consider ending your relationship. Visa versa if she cannot accept that you just want fuck buddies.

Imposing rules on a partner is a sucky way to do poly. Probably the only truly important boundaries to assert for yourself should focus on safer sex practices.

 

[GalaGirl]

To me it sounds like you want a different open model than her.

Like you want 1a from this article and she wants to practice one of the others.

http://www.kathylabriola.com/articles/models-of-open-relationships

There is nothing wrong with you wanting X like casual sex on your end of things and her wanting Y like more emotional connection on hers and with each other you practice Z. But if you each cannot deal with the other one's way of going?

You can either agree to leave it Closed (let X and Y go, practice only Z) or part ways so you are free to seek want you each want. (Let Z go, you go do X and and she does Y. )

Galagirl

 

[CED]

Hey NYcindie and Galagirl,

Thanks for the reply. To be clear though, I wasn't the one originally wanting to impose any rules. I think the way I've usually thought about it is similar to what you've described. I've never wanted to consume myself with worrying about whether my partner is cheating or loving someone else, and preferred just focusing my attention on how our own relationship is doing. If she's loving someone else on the side and I haven't noticed any changes in our own love life then I never saw any reason to care. If she's going to stop loving you then it will happen regardless, same as death, so not much reason to obsess over it. Just appreciate it while you can and be strong enough for when it may end.

Having said that, while I'm fine with complete openness, I've typically thought (perhaps incorrectly) that it's a bit harder to maintain multiple emotional connections since time is limited and time being shared with a different partner is time that isn't shared with one partner, thus naturally weakening the bond. But I guess the idea here is that if that's what one person is choosing to do, spend their time with someone else, then that's simply life and there's no reason to disallow it or make it out to be a dramatic thing. Similar to friendships dying out over time as people change and decide to spend their time with other people.

And yes, I do intend to read the books mentioned, but I guess I was just taking a fast route to gaining some clarity on this. I could of also googled some, but was interested in specific feedback on my situation as well

 

[GreenAcres]

Hey NYcindie and Galagirl,

Thanks for the reply. To be clear though, I wasn't the one originally wanting to impose any rules. I think the way I've usually thought about it is similar to what you've described. I've never wanted to consume myself with worrying about whether my partner is cheating or loving someone else, and preferred just focusing my attention on how our own relationship is doing. If she's loving someone else on the side and I haven't noticed any changes in our own love life then I never saw any reason to care. If she's going to stop loving you then it will happen regardless, same as death, so not much reason to obsess over it. Just appreciate it while you can and be strong enough for when it may end.

Having said that, while I'm fine with complete openness, I've typically thought (perhaps incorrectly) that it's a bit harder to maintain multiple emotional connections since time is limited and time being shared with a different partner is time that isn't shared with one partner, thus naturally weakening the bond. But I guess the idea here is that if that's what one person is choosing to do, spend their time with someone else, then that's simply life and there's no reason to disallow it or make it out to be a dramatic thing. Similar to friendships dying out over time as people change and decide to spend their time with other people.

One partner spending time away from another partner isn't necessarily a bad thing, and isn't necessarily a death knell for the relationship. We all spend time away from our partners for a variety of reasons: work, friends, hobbies, etc. Those things generally actually make our relationships stronger, not weaker, because they make us who we are, and make us happier people. Just because our partner doesn't engage in these activities with us, it doesn't mean they benefit from them.

For example, I work out at a gym several days a week, which is time I am not spending with anyone else in my life. This makes me much healthier, happier, and less-stressed person. Everyone else in my life benefits from this, even though they're not at the gym with me.

That said, yes, time is a limited resource, and is something you'll need to communicate about with all of your partners.

 

[FallenAngelina]

.... I've typically thought (perhaps incorrectly) that it's a bit harder to maintain multiple emotional connections since time is limited and time being shared with a different partner is time that isn't shared with one partner, thus naturally weakening the bond.

This is a false premise. Adding an intimate relationship to one's life does not necessarily take away from the depth of connection with others. Depth of connection does not equal time spent in each other's presence. If it did, we would have very little divorce.

 

[IndieSolo]

If you believe that love is a scarce resource then you will think that a person giving love to someone else takes love away from you. This is scarcity thinking. But love is not finite and you don't have to think that way and fear that you would be getting short-changed if your gf loves another. Love is at the center of who we are and connects us to other human beings. You can love more than one person - I am sure you have at least several relatives that you love. The romantic or intimate component is just an added feature to a particular kind of love, but it doesn't have to mean that it limits that love. I hope that makes sense.

 

[kdt26417]

Hi CED,

Re (from OP):

"I can see from reading the threads that different couples have different rules, but was just wondering if rules that allow for both in a couple to engage in strictly physical acts, without strong emotional ties was a common form of polyamory ..."

Common maybe; form of polyamory no. Polyamory is all about strong emotional ties, by definition. What you're describing is similar to swinging (which is fine).

Re:

"... and how this setup does versus a setup that allows for multiple emotional commitments?"

I suppose it does well enough as long as no one falls in love with anyone new. If they do, then that relationship has to be broken off, or a polyamorous arrangement has to be negotiated.

Polyamory has risks as well, perhaps even moreso. But, a lot of people have managed to live polyamorously successfully, and find that it's well worth it.

Re:

"We've already discussed it and she's allowed to engage in casual sex as well but it feels like she'd be at high risk of breaking the rules since by her own admission she can't do physical only encounters. How would this work?"

Poorly. You're setting her up for failure by requiring her to do something she knows she can't do.

I don't know how this type of problem is "usually" handled. It seems to me like you can either make sex with anyone but you forbidden for her, or you can make deep emotional connections with people besides you acceptable for her.

Re (from Post #5):

"I wasn't the one originally wanting to impose any rules."

Oh that's good; maybe you won't have to use the rules you were describing in that case.

Re:

"I've never wanted to consume myself with worrying about whether my partner is cheating or loving someone else, and preferred just focusing my attention on how our own relationship is doing."

That's a good way of looking at things.

Re:

"I've typically thought that it's a bit harder to maintain multiple emotional connections since time is limited and time being shared with a different partner is time that isn't shared with one partner, thus naturally weakening the bond."

It partly depends on how many partners a person has. Two partners, maybe three ... can usually be maintained with a good deep connection in each partnership. Ten or fifteen partners, and you'll have to limit how often you can see most of your partners and how involved you can be with them. Although, those are time-and-energy limitations. Love is not so limited and can be shared with very many partners without any partner being shorted. In polyamory, various partners have to divide up their shares of time and energy, but the love they give and receive is pretty much available to all in an endless supply.

 

[GalaGirl]

I've typically thought (perhaps incorrectly) that it's a bit harder to maintain multiple emotional connections since time is limited and time being shared with a different partner is time that isn't shared with one partner, thus naturally weakening the bond.

It does not have to be automatic doom, like ANY other connection would ring the death bell for your connection with her.

But there is such thing as taking on too much. Everyone has a poly saturation point. That could be something to talk about.


http://www.serolynne.com/polysaturation.htm

Galagirl

 

[KC43]

Having multiple emotional connections doesn't decrease any given connection. Emotions are an infinite resource, love particularly.

*Time* is finite. Having multiple relationships may mean having less *time* with each partner. It does not mean having less *love* for each.

On the other hand, having more than one sex partner, even for purely casual encounters, also means having less time for each partner. Time that you're having sex with Woman A is time you aren't spending with your girlfriend, for example.

As for "legislating" emotions... it's true that you can't impose rules on how someone does or doesn't feel. However, in some cases, it can work to form agreements or boundaries about what to do if certain feelings arise. For example, when Hubby and I first opened our marriage, it was intended as a sexual thing. He and I agreed that if one of us developed any feelings stronger than friendship for any other partner, we would immediately end contact with that person. We told each prospective partner about this up front; the woman he had sex with and the guys I had sex with all knew before anything remotely sexual happened that if love developed, it was over.

Some people consider that unfair and couple-centric. I don't necessarily agree about unfair (it would have been unfair if we hadn't made our other partners aware of the agreement; since we did, it was their choice to get involved anyway, and I think that was fair), but in our case, hell yeah it was couple-centric. We'd been together 5 years, married 3, and were raising my kids from my first marriage together. Those kids had already been through one hellacious divorce, and Hubby and I were determined to do anything we had to in order to keep our marriage together.

Things have changed now, clearly. Hubby understands now that, for me at least, love is not finite, and I am capable of maintaining more than one loving, romantic relationship without negative impact on my kids or the marriage. So I don't have that restriction anymore. But it worked while we had it, and actually led to my shift to polyamory; I fell in love with another partner, told Hubby that had happened and that i was keeping our agreement to cut ties with the other guy, and Hubby said, "No, don't, I don't believe you loving him will take away from you loving me, so I'm okay with it."

I couldn't do much about falling in love, but I was willing to stay away from the guy I'd fallen in love with in order to keep my agreement with my husband. My husband, bless him, chose not to require that.