Unicorns & Unicorn Hunters - Merged Threads, General Discussion
- Thread starter Erosa
- Start date
I think it would be helpful to both the forum and individuals if they could be honest about their prejudices and why they have them. I spoke about why I'm hypersensitive about people who demand the family style of poly with lots of metamour interaction. There was a time when I categorically believed that anyone who expresses a strong preference, let alone a need to meet metamours was a complete control freak. Time and understanding has taught me differently but I am still wary of it because of my fear that a relationship that I develop will be dictated by someone else. I think it is wise to recognise the risks in particular relationship configurations, especially the ones relevant to you, but also acknowledge when your own fears and experiences are colouring your views and leading you to make assumptions.
Last edited:
Well said!
Natja
New member
I stand by everything I wrote in the whole thread....I know what I said and don't need to use the search function for it.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
Yep. It's amazing how many people come here under the guise of seeking advice, but really they just want to be told that they're doing everything right and really it's the rest of the world that has a problem. "What?!?!!? You mean I might have to change my behaviour to find happiness??! GASP!"
Or more likely, she'd prefer to have a boyfriend, while her husband has a girlfriend, but he's not gonna agree to THAT, because only HIS penis is allowed to go near her vagina. And because women are more likely to be the placaters, and put their own needs aside in order to maintain peace and harmony, she agrees to this awful thing just to hold on to her provider. Because, of course, she's been raising his kids for the past 10 years and has lost all marketable employment skills, so she's completely at his mercy if he leaves...
SchrodingersCat
Active member
I'm having trouble grasping how these positions are compatible.
If someone falls deeply in love with one of you and doesn't care so much for the other, then you're not dating as a couple. You're dating as an individual who happens to also be a member of a couple.
However, expressing a preference for dating as a couple but being open to dating individually is, I think, the only way it can work. Attachment to outcomes is the only thing that can cause disappointment. Being open to any possibility is the only thing that can bring happiness.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
HOLY CRAP.
That article is really helpful. I'd never thought of it that way, i.e., the privilege of having a secure attachment style, and the notion that this attachment style isn't something people can necessarily change, and certainly isn't something they can change in a matter of weeks or months.
I had an awesome childhood. Not without its issues, no one's is, but most importantly I was loved and valued. It's taken me some time to realize how fortunate and privileged that makes me, and how much easier that makes my adult life compared to some people, and how many struggles I don't have just to cope with day-to-day life.
But this article talks about how having insecurity and needing rules because of it does not make you a bad person, and doesn't automatically mean you're doing it wrong. That maybe you'll never "progress" past needing rules, but maybe that's ok. That's a notion I hadn't considered, because I come from this privileged position of having a secure attachment style. I had always looked at those rules as stepping stones for couples who were on the path towards "doing it right." But for some people, I now realize, they might be permanent necessities.
That will affect the way I give advice, but it will also affect the way I interact with people in my own life.
Thank you, LR, for the eye-opener.
LovingRadiance
Active member
You're welcome. I only found the article. But I am glad the information was helpful for you.
I found it helpful to put into words some of the questions I was struggling with. I have a secure attachment style. But Maca definitely doesn't. It's interesting to consider, in light of my knowledge of his childhood. His mother abandoned him and took his two younger siblings when he was 10.
Obviously there is more. But it ABSOLUTELY had an affect on him.
Anyway, I have been studying this stuff about attachment styles, etc., in my classes at school and it was niggling me. But I couldn't figure out how to verbalize my thoughts. Then I found this article and it all came together. Now I just wish I had found it earlier!
BrigidsDaughter
New member
I read the article too, when it was posted on Facebook, and found it helpful.
I second this wholeheartedly.
"There is a seemingly completely unconscious position of privilege being developed by certain polyamorous folk that is leaving them apparently completely incapable of relating to the people who don't do things the way The Populists seem to keep espousing things should be done."
I love this. It's funny how, no matter what realm of human activity one looks at, there will always be some group that try to define what is "right," and then use that position to browbeat any unfortunate that does not meet their standard.
As far as I am concerned, as long as it's consensual and no one is getting hurt, live and let live. Even if it might be Politically Incorrect.
Yep. Not all of us are ourselves capable, or (as in my case) have a mate who is capable of, embracing the "correct" way to carry on multiple relationships. For example, I don't want to leave my very awesome mono-amorous husband whose one flaw is that he's very uncomfortable with the unconventional lifestyle I yearn for, so I compromise (he insists on total DADT, which is frowned upon in much of the polyamorous community as far as I can tell.)
Personally, I have been in triads before, one which lasted nearly 2 years before I bowed out. (The other two members of the triad got married soon afterwards.) But my triads were always organic. (This was before the days of internet dating, or internet forums.) I agree that most unicorn hunters probably won't find what they're looking for, going at it the way they do. And if they do, it won't go as they hope. But I give them total leeway to try, without an ounce of harshness or judgment from me.
It's funny, I can see these various dynamics playing out my life right now, which is why I've been following this thread closely.
Earlier this week I went out for drinks with a female friend of mine who is in an open relationship with her guy. She brought up that he's been wanting a threesome. She's open to the idea, but admits she's not very attracted to most women. The guy joined us, and the three of us talked it out, me playing the part (not wholly hypothetically) of a possible "unicorn." My position was, "What's in it for me? I take off my clothes and the woman isn't into me. Ouch! The guy is having a great time, but will he call me the next day?" What woman would agree to this? Only one who is very drunk, very lonely, or very attracted to the guy, and wants him for herself.
On the other hand, I have been flirting lately with a lesbian couple, and I'm really into the dynamic I have with them. They aren't unicorn hunters; I think they just dig me, and as I have a husband of my own, I'm not at a disadvantage if I join them once in a while. Win-win. I'm thinking THIS is the difference between a situation that is contrived versus one which is "organic."
Love this thread, guys, keep it rolling!
Dirtclustit
Banned
no Worries
It wasn't anything you did to get everyone stirred up. It's semantical bullshit, although that's just my opinion, but many people people around here call and couple desiring a triad "unicorn hunters" which is fine, and I completely understand that many people have done unrepairable damage to their relationships, I just disagree that it was the triad configuration that is the problem. I view Franklin as a typical punk male blogger, but on top of that, also seems to be a part of -- what I see as -- a very destructive grammarian movement to narrowly define "right polyamory".
But there is a whole web filled with foolish advice, it's not only that I disagree with his views on poly, I disagree with -- again what I see -- as attempts to influence "poly communities" into drawing up plans as to what/who is acceptable and what/who should be afflicted with shit, and I view that as wrong even if you are involved with the person or at least indirectly connected through metamours.
I have very black and white views of wrongful discrimination and feel he takes an ignorant view of the definition of bigotry, the male rape culture we live in, and just in general his way of -- again what I see -- mind fucking people for fun.
But to keep it on topic with triads and poly, my view is poly is more focused on love, NOT sex, and taking any relationship into a sexual relationships prematurely will cause problems if your intention is for the relationship to be based on love, with sex being a natural extension of that love. It's not rocket science, it's love, and to pretend that it is some specific failure that requires a bill of rights does nothing but mock what a loving relationship is all about.
He is entertainment, but not something I would take seriously as to "how to do poly" unless you like being the butt of his jokes or target of his jabs and online belittling.
The bottom line is, his plausible deniability and weak disclaimers do not excuse the fact that adults and their consented relationships are only their business, and attempting to influence other knowledgeable adults' relationships is the same type of crap that poly people have faced from society.
He is good at describing problems that appear relevant, but their relevance is usually purely semantical and not based in reality nor are they actual problems in the dynamics to trashes. Everyone knows that if you treat someone like an asshole, it generally isn't going to work out
on that note, he is a shining example of the painfully fucking obvious, yet it's worded in subtle, belittling ways to appear as if he is superior, all while denying it completely which equals one big poly mind fuck, which some people like or at least find humorous, whereas as I don't like it, nor do I find it funny, nor do I care about peoples opinions who find it offensive for my views, I would gladly ignore him like the rest of the yahoos if he kept his subtle hand out private electronic places, and that goes for every idiot author on the wide world of the internet's web.
or did I say too much again?
oh fucking well,
It wasn't anything you did or said River Dwellers, trust me, my opinion of punk polyamory was well formed long long ago, in the seemingly distant galaxy of Oregon
what's he going to do, talk more shit? absofuckinglutely positively impossible, all more bullshit past a point -- which was many many moons ago -- reached a mathematical limit as it approached the numerical value of infinity long before I even had a computer with an internet connection
It wasn't anything you did to get everyone stirred up. It's semantical bullshit, although that's just my opinion, but many people people around here call and couple desiring a triad "unicorn hunters" which is fine, and I completely understand that many people have done unrepairable damage to their relationships, I just disagree that it was the triad configuration that is the problem. I view Franklin as a typical punk male blogger, but on top of that, also seems to be a part of -- what I see as -- a very destructive grammarian movement to narrowly define "right polyamory".
But there is a whole web filled with foolish advice, it's not only that I disagree with his views on poly, I disagree with -- again what I see -- as attempts to influence "poly communities" into drawing up plans as to what/who is acceptable and what/who should be afflicted with shit, and I view that as wrong even if you are involved with the person or at least indirectly connected through metamours.
I have very black and white views of wrongful discrimination and feel he takes an ignorant view of the definition of bigotry, the male rape culture we live in, and just in general his way of -- again what I see -- mind fucking people for fun.
But to keep it on topic with triads and poly, my view is poly is more focused on love, NOT sex, and taking any relationship into a sexual relationships prematurely will cause problems if your intention is for the relationship to be based on love, with sex being a natural extension of that love. It's not rocket science, it's love, and to pretend that it is some specific failure that requires a bill of rights does nothing but mock what a loving relationship is all about.
He is entertainment, but not something I would take seriously as to "how to do poly" unless you like being the butt of his jokes or target of his jabs and online belittling.
The bottom line is, his plausible deniability and weak disclaimers do not excuse the fact that adults and their consented relationships are only their business, and attempting to influence other knowledgeable adults' relationships is the same type of crap that poly people have faced from society.
He is good at describing problems that appear relevant, but their relevance is usually purely semantical and not based in reality nor are they actual problems in the dynamics to trashes. Everyone knows that if you treat someone like an asshole, it generally isn't going to work out
on that note, he is a shining example of the painfully fucking obvious, yet it's worded in subtle, belittling ways to appear as if he is superior, all while denying it completely which equals one big poly mind fuck, which some people like or at least find humorous, whereas as I don't like it, nor do I find it funny, nor do I care about peoples opinions who find it offensive for my views, I would gladly ignore him like the rest of the yahoos if he kept his subtle hand out private electronic places, and that goes for every idiot author on the wide world of the internet's web.
or did I say too much again?
oh fucking well,
It wasn't anything you did or said River Dwellers, trust me, my opinion of punk polyamory was well formed long long ago, in the seemingly distant galaxy of Oregon
what's he going to do, talk more shit? absofuckinglutely positively impossible, all more bullshit past a point -- which was many many moons ago -- reached a mathematical limit as it approached the numerical value of infinity long before I even had a computer with an internet connection
YouAreHere
Well-known member
Another POV here - Franklin's site really did wonders for me, as I started navigating these waters from the POV of a monoamorous person who was just starting to become involved with a polyamorous person. A handful of the articles were extremely useful for me to point to and say, "Hey! This is the stuff I haven't been able to articulate, THIS is why I'm uncomfortable with X&Y, and can we all work on this before you guys go whole-hog?"
Some of those articles helped me relate better to P, and some of them helped P and M1 relate better to my POV. I'm glad those resources were there.
You may have your opinions of FV's site, but the problems he addresses are/were real-world for me, at least. And last I checked, I wasn't a sock puppet.
That so-called article was all very well. Her attitudes and use of expletives made it seem more like a rant than something coming from a therapeutic POV.
Like YouAreHere, I find usefulness in Veaux's website. I do not spend hours reading many poly sites or listening to weekly podcasts. I just get on with my life. My relationships happen to be polyamorous, but are not full of drama. I've only read 2 or 3 of Veaux's articles. I also read at Practical Polyamory a few years back.
I do not consider myself a "poly populist" or whatever. I do not demand others do polyamory exactly the way I do. If you need a lot of boundaries and rules, or DADT, because of trust issues in the primary couple, so be it. Maybe you had a bad childhood, maybe one of you was a cheater before you became polyamorous, maybe one of you is monoamorous and confused, and wary. Whatever.
Having rules around an alternative lifestyle, when one is new to it, is common. I homeschooled my kids in a form called unschooling. Other people I knew used a bought homeschool curriculums, or enforced sitting down and "doing school" at desks in the home, for a prescribed number of hours a day. Some of these families kept that up, the strictness. Others started that way, and became more relaxed as they trusted more in the eagerness of their children to learn, and could do school in a more open, hands-on, child-led way. It really didn't matter to me.
So, it doesn't matter to me if newly open couples have their stricter boundaries as they grow into trusting poly to work, as they grow in trusting their partner to treat them respectfully.
But going back to the subject of THIS thread, I do object when your rules include that we (the couple) only date together, and our shared gf must love us equally, and only date or fuck us as a team. Rules for a couple are one thing, harmful rules that are forced onto another, are something else again.
My point is, Unicorn Hunting just does not work. But so many poly noobs think threeways ARE the only way to do polyamory. So, I just like to inform them it is the least successful way to practice polyamory. But if they insist on doing it anyway, and learning by doing that I was right, it's their lives to live as they please.
Like YouAreHere, I find usefulness in Veaux's website. I do not spend hours reading many poly sites or listening to weekly podcasts. I just get on with my life. My relationships happen to be polyamorous, but are not full of drama. I've only read 2 or 3 of Veaux's articles. I also read at Practical Polyamory a few years back.
I do not consider myself a "poly populist" or whatever. I do not demand others do polyamory exactly the way I do. If you need a lot of boundaries and rules, or DADT, because of trust issues in the primary couple, so be it. Maybe you had a bad childhood, maybe one of you was a cheater before you became polyamorous, maybe one of you is monoamorous and confused, and wary. Whatever.
Having rules around an alternative lifestyle, when one is new to it, is common. I homeschooled my kids in a form called unschooling. Other people I knew used a bought homeschool curriculums, or enforced sitting down and "doing school" at desks in the home, for a prescribed number of hours a day. Some of these families kept that up, the strictness. Others started that way, and became more relaxed as they trusted more in the eagerness of their children to learn, and could do school in a more open, hands-on, child-led way. It really didn't matter to me.
So, it doesn't matter to me if newly open couples have their stricter boundaries as they grow into trusting poly to work, as they grow in trusting their partner to treat them respectfully.
But going back to the subject of THIS thread, I do object when your rules include that we (the couple) only date together, and our shared gf must love us equally, and only date or fuck us as a team. Rules for a couple are one thing, harmful rules that are forced onto another, are something else again.
My point is, Unicorn Hunting just does not work. But so many poly noobs think threeways ARE the only way to do polyamory. So, I just like to inform them it is the least successful way to practice polyamory. But if they insist on doing it anyway, and learning by doing that I was right, it's their lives to live as they please.
That's terribly good-spirited of you.
However, I can think of a number of very unsuccessful ways to do poly that could well vie for the bottom ranking. Maybe we could all chip in and make a list of Poly Nightmares?
How about this one for starters? "We're all equal..."
And this is the part I think tends to get missed in a lot of these discussions, as everyone runs to the rescue of the poor beleaguered unicorn from the nasty red eyed unicorn hunters.
If the main thrust of the rescue is that the Unicorn is her own person, with wants, desires, and feelings of her own...which is all fine and good.
But that means that the Unicorn is her own person, with the responsibility and capability to manage her own wants, desires, feeling, etc. like any other adult. Thus nothing can be forced on her in a consensual relationship which she herself isn't willing to agree too.
Many relationships don't work our for a variety of reasons, and people get hurt during the process. But...we're all grown ups...unicorns included, and we get to manage the consequences of our actions and choices.
I'm all for personal responsibility. In fact, when I first heard about the concept of unicorn hunters, my first thought was about the accountability of this "third" person. They should be scouting ahead for red flags. However, we were all raised in a monogamous mindset. Well, most of us. And getting away from the idea that you are "borrowing someone's spouse" is difficult. I think that unicorn hunters (often unintentionally) exploit that to justify their more unreasonable demands. The same can be true for a vee with anyone in an established relationship but I suspect in a triad, it is magnified.
Exactly. Sometimes I get the feeling that people are simply wanting to find a new class of victims to save - and a Unicorn fits the bill. It simply doesn't sit comfortably with these 'rescuers' to accept that a person (OK, most likely a woman) might able to make clear, rational and informed decisions about her life.
Spot the Catch-22 here? Caroline Myss calls it woundology - and I see a projection of this. "She's being pursued by a couple - she must be a victim. Oh you poor thing, that nasty couple is about to eat you for breakfast. I'll save you...".
This spoken by a person (again, often a woman) who fights for strong, independent women who are not living their lives according to some old patriarchal model. What are you supporting - victim mentality or self-actualisation?
That's not negating the fact that the whole "we'll find someone to complete our relationship" model is a total disaster in almost all cases. I'm simply saying, stop trying to save people from themselves.
Last edited:
And who is to judge what is unrealistic and what is not? What may be your impossible dream may be someone else's reality (and vice versa).