The "no breakup" dynamic

CuriousRon

CuriousRon

New member
This is an idealistic theory I first posted to a facebook polyamory group and later as an essay on fetlife. Like I said it's idealistic and might have a lot of practical drawbacks but I would like to know what some of you think. I'm including the two comments from the essay.


---
Note: I originally posted this as several comments on a polyamory facebook group. It's been altered to essay format.

Breakups are common in monogamy but why do they happen? After all, you don't "breakup" with the other people in your life such as your friends and family members. Friends come and go due to several reasons, usually when they move or you do. Kids grow up and move out of the house etc. The closest thing there is to "breaking up" with them is a "falling out" but that's usually due to extremely serious problems. Monogamous couples break up for a lot less.

So why do breakups happen? Answer, monogamy, particularly "serial monogamy". We can have multiple brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles etc. and friends but only one romantic partner and if that partner for some reason doesn't fulfill all our needs, then we have to either live with that need not being fulfilled or dump that person and go find someone else (or cheat). This puts a lot of pressure on mono people as they have to fulfill more of their partner's needs then any single friend or family member does. However, what if we could go out and find another partner without breaking up with our current one? This would put a lot less pressure on any one partner. A partner doesn't have to be our "everything".

So in theory, "breakups" would not be necessary in poly relationships unless a given relationship was toxic. Yes partners would still come and go for various reasons just as it is with the other people in our lives but there would be no "Joe we have to talk", no "drop all contact" no "rebound" etc. If someone left for some reason we of course would miss them but we wouldn't feel broken hearted or "dumped" or feel the need to "get over them".

Of course you're going to lose partners as people drift in and out of your life for various reasons but it's the "big dramatic breakup" that's so common in serial monogamy that doesn't have to happen. There simply isn't any need for it baring some serious issues.

I'll give you an example. Let's say I'm mono and I have a girlfriend who's also mono and maybe a little needy. Now this girlfriend takes a lot of my time but since I love her I give her that time. Now let's say that something happens in my life and I can no longer give her all the time she requires. I no longer have time for a relationship so I break up with her. I didn't want to do it but I had no choice. Letting her be by herself in a monoexclusive relationship when she can be out finding someone who can give her the time she needs would be the greater evil.

Same situation but were both poly. I tell her that I have some serious shit going on in my life and I don't have the same time to spend with her that I use to, she says "hey that suck but I understand" and goes and plays with one of her other partners. Breakup not needed.

Another situation. Me and my girlfriend are mono and have been together three years. I then meet another women. She turns me on intellectually, emotionally, and sexually and we both hit it off big time with lots of NRE and Disney.. The only way I can pursue her is to break up with my girlfriend and that breakup will be painful and dramatic. However, if we're both poly (and so is my new crush) then no breakups are necessary .

However, I did say "in theory". Perhaps people practicing egalitarian polyamory or relationship anarchy could come close to this ideal but in practice, things like legal marriage, cohabitation, shared expenses and kids may throw a monkey wrench into this idea but in an ideal poly world the only people "breaking up" would be rock bands.
---
Username_Deleted: 4 days ago | report | delete

Well.... It sounds nice ideally, but in practice I think that people aren't always synched up emotionally enough for this to work. To keep it short.... Bob and Janet are a happy couple. Janet meets Rhonda and wants to start spending 2-3 nights a week with her. Bob now feels like he's on the shelf even though they haven't broken up, because unlike Janet, his feelings hadn't cooled off. Bob & Janet then have a serious point of contention.

Curious_Ron: 1 day ago | delete

Well, Bob and Janet are poly so Bob could also meet someone else and spend 2-3 night a week with her. (or him) The same kind of "cooling off" can happen with friends too but you don't "break up" with a friend because he no longer has time to play golf with you 2 days a week.

I do recognize that this is an "idealistic theory" and lots of things can throw monkey wrenches into it such as couple privilege based hierarchical polyamory with rules and vetos. It would be kind of hard to temporarily "go your own way" if you still had to theoretically "get permission" from your partner to see somebody else. However, I can see this dynamic coming into play in forms of polyamory without strict rules or in RA. (no need to "break up" if you don't call what you have with someone a "relationship) It could also come into play among one's secondaries in hierarchical polyamory depending on the rules .

One possible way of making this work in more structured forms of poly might be with something I call a "polybreak" which is a loose approximation or a marital separation. A couple who no longer can give each other the attention and time they need with each other can agree to not end the relationship but to suspend whatever rules they have in place concerning other partners.
 
CuriousRon said:
So why do breakups happen? Answer, monogamy, particularly "serial monogamy". We can have multiple brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles etc. and friends but only one romantic partner and if that partner for some reason doesn't fulfill all our needs, then we have to either live with that need not being fulfilled or dump that person and go find someone else (or cheat).
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on the need. Something intimate, that is typically reserved for a partner? Sure. Something like a shared interest? Not at all. I had plenty of friends with whom I did various things, none of which impacted my relationship. I didn't need to make any of those friendships into partner-type of relationships simply because I now hung out with them and, for example, did photography stuff.

I never expect a partner to fulfill all my needs, but I have no need for another partner.
 
Well said Ron, I completely agree with everything you said in this post. That is exactly how I see things and my idea of what relationships should be like. :D
 
What about with 'nesting partners' (or what ever you want to call your live in partner)? Whould not a change in domicile feel like a 'break up'?
 
Doesn't the no-breakup dynamic you describe presume that all poly people are compatible with all other poly people?

That isn't the case. Someone who is happiest as a free agent isn't going to be at home in a poly-fidelitous arrangement. Someone who yearns for a close-knit poly tribe is not going to be compatible with someone who puts a premium on keeping relationships separate from each other.

I would wager, based on past conversation, that if I were to determine that it was necessary for me to become celibate for some reason other than a temporary medical one-- say, to join a monastery-- Xicot and I would renegotiate our relationship to acknowledge that it had become a friendship, rather than a sexual relationship, even if he already had other partners in place, and we would take some time ALL THE WAY APART to help mark that transition. Because at that point, the thing that distinguishes friendship from lover-ship to him would be absent.

That, IMO, is a breakup, even if it's called a renegotiation.
 
Hi CuriousRon,

Your essay is well-written and makes several good points ... yet I do have my own take on it and I would share that with you.

Re (from OP):
"The closest thing there is to 'breaking up' with them is a 'falling out' but that's usually due to extremely serious problems. Monogamous couples break up for a lot less."
Click to expand...

Well, my perception has always been that it usually takes a more serious problem for a monogamous couple (especially if they're married) to break up, than it does for friends or even relatives to have a falling out.

Of course there is such a thing as a "cold marriage." In fact a marriage usually has to go cold for quite awhile before it segues into a divorce.

Re:
"We can have multiple brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles etc. and friends but only one romantic partner and if that partner for some reason doesn't fulfill all our needs, then we have to either live with that need not being fulfilled or dump that person and go find someone else (or cheat). This puts a lot of pressure on mono people as they have to fulfill more of their partner's needs then any single friend or family member does."
Click to expand...

True enough that.

Re:
"So in theory, 'breakups' would not be necessary in poly relationships unless a given relationship was toxic."
Click to expand...

True enough, although I have heard about more than a few toxic poly relationships in my day.

Re:
"No need to 'break up' if you don't call what you have with someone a 'relationship.'"
Click to expand...

Technically true, though that could mostly be a matter of semantics. (Sort of like saying, "We didn't break up; we just renegotiated.")

Re (from A2Poly):
"Would not a change in domicile feel like a 'breakup?'"
Click to expand...

Important point I think.

Re (from Garriguette):
"Someone who is happiest as a free agent isn't going to be at home in a polyfidelitous arrangement. Someone who yearns for a close-knit poly tribe is not going to be compatible with someone who puts a premium on keeping relationships separate from each other."
Click to expand...

Also an important point.

Where I think monogamy tends to cause a climate for breakups/divorce is when one or both partners/spouses are mostly "polyamorous at heart" and only practice monogamy because society has programmed and pressured them to do so. If I can strip away all the social conditioning and still find two people who are mostly "monogamous at heart," then I think they will consider their monogamous life to be worth its drawbacks.

Long story short, I'm not of the school of thought that polyamory is generally better than monogamy, I am of the school of thought that polyamory is just different from monogamy (as long as social pressures aren't taken into account).
 
Garriguette said:
Doesn't the no-breakup dynamic you describe presume that all poly people are compatible with all other poly people?

That isn't the case. Someone who is happiest as a free agent isn't going to be at home in a poly-fidelitous arrangement. Someone who yearns for a close-knit poly tribe is not going to be compatible with someone who puts a premium on keeping relationships separate from each other.
Click to expand...

In actual practice the "no breakup dynamic" would work best among free agents who date like minded people, particularly RAs and egalitarian polys. Polifi arrangements, particularly closed triads, tend to be more "mono-like" and are therefore subject to more mono dynamics. Like I said before, it would also not likely come into play in "couple based" polyamory that has more rules and structures but it still might come into play among a primary couple member's secondary partners.
 
kdt26417 said:
Well, my perception has always been that it usually takes a more serious problem for a monogamous couple (especially if they're married) to break up, than it does for friends or even relatives to have a falling out..
Click to expand...

When I first wrote this as a post to a Facebook polyamory group, it was actually "serial monogamy" I had in mind. Particularly the kind where someone has a series of monogamous relationships that last from a few months to a few years and constantly goes through the cycle of meet, date, exclusive relationship, breakup, drop contact, rebound, lather, rinse, repeat. Those tend to end for the flimsiest reasons but the real reason usually comes down to one partner becoming bored with the other and wanting something different. Some of the shorter ones end as soon as one partner or the other "falls out of love. (NRE wears off that is)

And I will become judgmental on this point. Poly is IMHO better then "serial monogamy". Having multiple partners who you don't necessarily have to break up with is far superior to a series of monogamous relationships with unknown expiration dates.
 
Well it sounds like a situation where the person is moving from one monogamous relationship to the next because they want a new dose of NRE. I don't know what I think about that. If they call it polyamory but they're still phasing out relatively old relationships while phasing in newer and more exciting relationships, then not a lot has changed other than what they're calling it. If their partners know that they're going to be phased out as soon as the NRE wears off and they don't mind, then I guess there's not a problem and you could call it one sort of polyamory.

It's a little foreign to me because the polyamorous life I lead is a lot more structured, closed, and long-term. My last dose of NRE expired a long time ago, but I'm not about to phase my partner out, nor phase any new partner in. I guess what makes us poly is that her husband and I both have romantic ties with her. We are happy in our life together and don't feel the need for NRE. I could look for a new or additional partner and it means a lot to me that I have that freedom, yet I don't feel any need to exercise it. I expect to remain a part of this MFM V for the rest of my life, and it's where I want to be.

Maybe the common thread here is that it's important to be honest with our partners about what we want and what they can expect from us. If someone claims to have monogamous intentions, while in their heart they aren't really wired for monogamy, then they're deceiving their partner/s and possibly themself. I would rather have that person admit that a poly life has much more appeal for them, and be self-aware and honest about what kind of polyamory they want and why.
 
Garriguette said:
Doesn't the no-breakup dynamic you describe presume that all poly people are compatible with all other poly people?

That isn't the case. Someone who is happiest as a free agent isn't going to be at home in a poly-fidelitous arrangement. Someone who yearns for a close-knit poly tribe is not going to be compatible with someone who puts a premium on keeping relationships separate from each other.

I would wager, based on past conversation, that if I were to determine that it was necessary for me to become celibate for some reason other than a temporary medical one-- say, to join a monastery-- Xicot and I would renegotiate our relationship to acknowledge that it had become a friendship, rather than a sexual relationship, even if he already had other partners in place, and we would take some time ALL THE WAY APART to help mark that transition. Because at that point, the thing that distinguishes friendship from lover-ship to him would be absent.

That, IMO, is a breakup, even if it's called a renegotiation.
Click to expand...

I asked my husband last week if we could remove the sexual component from our relationship for a short period of time. It's been an issue, on and off, for a few years, that he's getting 99% of his sexual needs met with his girlfriend, which has been affecting our sexual relationship and has built up some negativity on my side towards the whole entire thing. I've been struggling with depression since I witnessed a traumatic event in July and my hope is that without the stress of trying to navigate the negative feelings I've had around our sex life, I'll be able to get a handle on my depression better, the break will make it so I'm not confronted with rejection all the time, and when the break is over, we'll be able to consciously rebuild our sexual relationship into something new and satisfying to both of us. We'll see.
 
If someone I've been hot-and-heavy with, spending lots of time with, suddenly pulls away and seems to put our relationship on the backburner because they've met someone new, I will certainly create a scene. I do not believe "new" ought to mean "more important," especially if I've been with the partner long enough to build up trust and feeling and intimacy. If not corrected, this behavior will cause me to breakup in the traditional and dramatic manner, as in cut contact (at least for a while.) I do not just quietly fade into the background without any hurt feelings unless my feelings were lukewarm to begin with.

However, with very casual relationships, I have just faded or had the other just ghost without needed "the talk." You know, you stop returning texts in a timely manner, you don't initiate contact anymore. The other person, unless they have very strong feelings for you, catches on and disappears. There was never a "breakup" but you know when you see them again, you probably won't do anything more than polite conversation. Not breaking up with them doesn't mean they are still my lover. The transition happened between the lines, and we both know it.

So in my opinion, the non-breakup rule only works for what I consider casual relationships. I wouldn't expect anyone who I'd uttered words of love too, or spent lots of time with, or become very close with, to just fade to the background while I pursued a new love interest, career, whatever. Any transition in the relationships's intensity, to me, would merit some discussion, and unless the excuse was a good one (I'm busy caring for a sick parent, etc.), things might even become "dramatic."

On the other hand, perhaps because I've been polyamorous and am good at non-traditional relationships, I've been able to form a very outside-of-the-box relationship with my husband. Technically, we are "separated." In a monogamous world, that would mean a "break up," as in we are no longer intimate and we are heading towards divorce. Instead, it feels more like the relationship has transitioned from a traditional marriage into something more loosely defined. We live apart, but we have sleep-overs twice a week or so. We have no current plans for divorce. We date others. He helps me financially. I don't know that I ever want to live with him again. So far, we've been able to do the non-breakup thing, but I suspect that would change if he met a monogamous woman who asked him to stop seeing me.
 
Last edited:
CuriousRon said:
When I first wrote this as a post to a Facebook polyamory group, it was actually "serial monogamy" I had in mind. Particularly the kind where someone has a series of monogamous relationships that last from a few months to a few years and constantly goes through the cycle of meet, date, exclusive relationship, breakup, drop contact, rebound, lather, rinse, repeat. Those tend to end for the flimsiest reasons but the real reason usually comes down to one partner becoming bored with the other and wanting something different. Some of the shorter ones end as soon as one partner or the other "falls out of love. (NRE wears off that is)

And I will become judgmental on this point. Poly is IMHO better then "serial monogamy". Having multiple partners who you don't necessarily have to break up with is far superior to a series of monogamous relationships with unknown expiration dates.
Click to expand...

I think you are assuming that everyone values NRE as much as you do. I do not think that is true.

Part of the reason that monogamy works so well *for me* (note, please, that "for me" part) is that I don't enjoy NRE. It is over-stimulating and feels indistinguishable from anxiety. I am relieved when it is over, and I have a less-clouded sense of whom this person I fancy actually is.

By your standards I would be a serial monogamist, and therefore far inferior. What the label "serial monogamist" doesn't indicate is that I have ended precisely one romantic relationship in my life, and it was a romantic relationship that I manifestly shouldn't have been in, in the first place, as sometimes happens when one is 18 and new at relationships. The others, I'd have been happy to continue working on, had the other party been interested in staying.

I would not be staying in a 10-year relationship with someone who accidentally discovered in year nine that he was poly if I cut and run easily, and I resent your implication that mono people are incapable of lasting commitment.

I suspect you are an excellent judge of what works *for you*. That does not make you an excellent judge of what works *for everyone*.
 
One type of serial monogamy that might be served better by polyamory is, not so much one where one gets "bored" of one's spouse, but rather one where one falls in love with a second person, and believes (due to social conditioning) that s/he must choose one person and break up with the other. Polyamory opens up the possibility of retaining both people. So no breakup there.
 
CuriousRon said:
I never said that.
Click to expand...

Note the word "implication." People can say without saying.

You did say, and I quoted, "Having multiple partners who you don't necessarily have to break up with is far superior to a series of monogamous relationships with unknown expiration dates."

Any person is free to exit a relationship at any time. You can't assume that someone whose relationship has ended would have chosen that it end. And the words you choose sure make it *sound* as if you assuming precisely that.

And, FWIW, your relationships, poly or whatever, have an unknown expiration date, even if you leave no one and are dumped by no one, because you are mortal. Poly is not your get-out-ever-having-to-say-goodbye card.
 
kdt26417 said:
One type of serial monogamy that might be served better by polyamory is, not so much one where one gets "bored" of one's spouse, but rather one where one falls in love with a second person, and believes (due to social conditioning) that s/he must choose one person and break up with the other. Polyamory opens up the possibility of retaining both people. So no breakup there.
Click to expand...

A popular quote that may or may not have been said by Johnny Depp...

“if you love two people at the same time, choose the second. Because if you really loved the first one, you wouldn't have fallen for the second.”

I once spoofed this by saying...

"If you have two children then put the first one up for adoption because if you really loved your firstborn then you wouldn't have had a second child"
 
Except the "child" analogies really, REALLY fall flat for many mono folks.

For me, romantic love *is* different than the love for a child, and it *is* zero-sum. I do a better job of explaining my POV on my blog, but here's the post: http://frombaltictoboardwalk.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-analogies-and-love.html (the child analogy thing is written about in the first post, I believe).

If I nurture romantic feelings for someone else, it does, for me, pull feelings away from an established partner. I cannot sustain more than one partner-type of relationship.

Now, the Depp "quote" cheeses me off a bit because I know my partner *doesn't* love the way I do (and it's pretty insulting to him), but replacing it with an analogy that uses a completely different type of relationship also cheeses me off. I'm trying to raise my kids to grow up to be their own people - to eventually go out in the world, away from me, and to find their own way. I will love them forever, but it's a much different love than the kind I have for a partner - where I want to entwine my life with theirs, and share damn near everything we can - from the good to the bad to the mundane, and hopefully be together as long as we can. Which wouldn't be the most healthy parent-child relationship, certainly.

So, I don't know that your word replacement is as effective as you'd like it to be. It certainly isn't for me, as it seems to set up a completely unrelated straw-man argument. A better way to discuss the point would be to break the statement down - why do they feel as though the person must have fallen out of love - and deal with that. Not as fun, certainly, but I do love a good, in-depth discussion.

Of course, having reasonable debate and discussion on Facebook is a losing proposition in and of itself sometimes. ;)
 
Last edited:
I dont think that you dont break up when you are poly, I guess it just depends on the level of relationship. Nick has sex partners, they usually explain why they stop seeing him but they dont just disappear
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top