Using same pet name for all girlfriends

[dichotomiss]

Hi all,

I'm relatively new. I've updated my signature to show the people this post will be talking about for reference.

I am new to poly, and have been dating a poly man for 6 months. I struggle a lot with this, because I think I may be monoamorous, or I at least have a preference for that (and so does my busy schedule!) I am sort of equally emotional and rational about it all, and I vascillate between acceptance and joy with the freedom poly offers, and difficulty with all of the emotional reactions I have as I actively practice it with my partner, M.

M and I are in a fairly serious relationship. He doesn't label relationship hierarchies in practice, but if we are talking about the sheer amount of time and effort he invests in our relationship, it's clear I am the priority. He has assured me of as much, at least, and his actions seem to as well. I feel relatively secure most of the time.

This weekend, though, a couple things happened that caused my heart to do that sinking thing it does from time to time in our relationship. I'll include them for context, as I think they heightened my emotional response, but the main thing I will list first:

1. I asked him what his pet names are for his other girlfriends S and V. He told me that he calls them the same thing he calls me, "Baby."

2. He had gone on a date with V the night before, and he spent our first hour together talking about her. At first I didn't mind because I was curious to hear about his night and his new girlfriend, but after awhile it bothered me, and I pointed it out and asked politely if we could change the subject.

3. He told me about a braggy text he had sent to a friend of his the night before when he was out with V that mentioned he was "out with one of his girlfriends", and that his other girlfriend (me) was coming the next day to visit.

I don't mind #s 2 and 3 on their own so much. But #1 really killed me. I know that "Baby" is obviously a very common pet name, and a default for many people. But we have a Dd/lg D/s dynamic in the bedroom, and our pet names for each other are/were "Daddy" and "Baby". When he first called me that, I thought of it as an extension of what we had going on in the bedroom. I loved being called Baby by him; he is actually the first man to give me that pet name in a relationship.

I didn't realize when I signed a Valentine's Day to him with "Love, Baby" that "Baby" wasn't exactly my very own pet name, but a generic one. I always felt in my heart that it had meaning, because it did for me. It symbolized not only the kinky dynamic we have, but also that I can feel safe and cared for by him. I'm embarrassed about how much it meant to me, and how foolish I feel for thinking it was special. The crying part of me right now is telling myself that I should also feel foolish for thinking *I* am special to him. But I know I am, that's just part of the awful emotional response I'm having about this.

I asked him to call me something else. He's taken to calling me "little one." It's only been a day, but it feels so wrong. I wish I could still be Baby, but when he tried to call me that again yesterday, it bothered me too much to hear it.

This is such a silly thing, but then again it's not. We rarely use our actual names to refer to each other. I am really grieving the loss of being "Baby" as I understood it. And I feel really hurt about it.

I would love to hear any advice about how to deal with this, and if anyone has any thoughts or experience with this type of thing directly.

 

[vinsanity0]

My first thought is: If you like being called Baby, then why tell him to stop. it doesn't really matter what he calls anyone else. they are not you. It could have a different meaning for each person he calls that.

What you said in #2 is not unreasonable. Some people want to hear about their partner's life, some don't. If you don't want to hear it let him know.

Not sure what bothered you about #3, unless you are just a very private person who doesn't want your BF talking about you to other people.

 

[PinkPig]

I agree with Vinsanity. If you like being called baby, have him call you baby. If it helps you to feel special, retain the pet name little one as well. My ex Blue, liked to call all of his girlfriend baby. But he also had another, unique pet name for each girlfriend. That worked for me.

I can understand your discomfort with item 2. I'd suggest just communicating with him your boundaries regarding shared information (how much or little you want him to share with you, about you, and how much time you're willing to spend listening. Also, don't be afraid in the moment to tell him he's over sharing. )

For item 3, is it the fact that he lumped you together that bothered you? As in, made you feel like just one of a number instead of a unique girlfriend?

 

[dichotomiss]

Thank you both for your replies!

I agree with Vinsanity. If you like being called baby, have him call you baby. If it helps you to feel special, retain the pet name little one as well. My ex Blue, liked to call all of his girlfriend baby. But he also had another, unique pet name for each girlfriend. That worked for me.

I think I will revert back to being called Baby. When I was feeling very upset about it, hearing it felt a bit like cheese graters on my eardrums. But I'm realizing that the pain I have been feeling in not being called that continues to bother me, while the irritation I initially felt after learning it was not a unique name for me has dissipated a little since then.

For item 3, is it the fact that he lumped you together that bothered you? As in, made you feel like just one of a number instead of a unique girlfriend?

I think hearing that felt like I was just one of a number, and not special. But I was also upset because I felt it was a womanizing type of comment. My (and also the other women's) value and worth to him was reduced to something more akin to a stroking of his ego... it sounded like he was bragging about collecting and maintaining a small roster of women.

 

[PinkPig]

I think hearing that felt like I was just one of a number, and not special. But I was also upset because I felt it was a womanizing type of comment. My (and also the other women's) value and worth to him was reduced to something more akin to a stroking of his ego... it sounded like he was bragging about collecting and maintaining a small roster of women.

I understand. I felt like that with Blue before, too. I think it's worth delving into the reasons behind it. Is it just social conditioning and/or insecurity/ego issues on your part (needing to feel special or more important than the other women he dates in order to feel like you matter/are valued) or is he a bit of a womanizer? If it's the latter, then there are likely other times/issues where that feeling crops up. In my case, it really was all of the above. I definitely had the need to feel special/unique/more important than the other women he dated. That was a me issue. Something that I'm continuing to work on.... both letting go of my ego that tells me that I need to be more than someone else in order to feel good about myself... and the social conditioning aspect. Working on those issues helps me no matter who I am with (or if I'm with no one.) The womanizing part, I couldn't do anything about except accept him as he was or let him go. It really helped me to delve into the whys of my feelings.

 

[dichotomiss]

I understand. I felt like that with Blue before, too. I think it's worth delving into the reasons behind it. Is it just social conditioning and/or insecurity/ego issues on your part (needing to feel special or more important than the other women he dates in order to feel like you matter/are valued) or is he a bit of a womanizer?

All of the above LOL! He's sort of the quintessential bachelor... never married, has had a string of girlfriends throughout his life. His longest relationship lasted 6 years. I'm 15 years his junior and my longest relationship (with my son's father) lasted twice as long. He's really into looking at girls and liking their photos on FetLife, very much into porn, and into receiving female attention. I like porn, too... I'm not saying he shouldn't do any of these things. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure if it's social conditioning that I look at those things and come to a loose conclusion in my head that he is sort of a womanizer. I think he used to be much worse, and is at a more mature point in his life now, but old habits die hard.

I am so new to poly. I respect and am open to the philosophy, but deep down I think I could be hardwired to be monoamorous. That may not be the case, since my relationship with A is still so new and there seems to be the possibility there for deeper feelings for him to develop alongside my feelings for M. But my schedule as a freelancing single mom sort of makes it hard for me to focus on more than one relationship at the same level, so from at least a practical standpoint, I've been monoamorous while dating M.

But also, I just have a strong desire to be super important to someone and for them to be super important to me. Right now, M is that for me. I do have fears that my level of importance will ebb with his new relationship with V. So you are kind of spot-on there. His other gf, S, doesn't take up much of his time, and I've never really worried on that front. But M and I live two hours apart and see each other only on weekends mostly, while V is local to him and they can see each other much more often if they wished to. I did tell him that I worry about him not being as available to talk to me throughout the week if he's out on dates often, and he's told me he can call me to talk every day if I want. He wants our relationship to work, and is committed to making that happen. Which is great, and something I need to remind myself of.

I definitely had the need to feel special/unique/more important than the other women he dated. That was a me issue. Something that I'm continuing to work on.... both letting go of my ego that tells me that I need to be more than someone else in order to feel good about myself... and the social conditioning aspect. Working on those issues helps me no matter who I am with (or if I'm with no one.)

Well said. That's the sort of psychological reconditioning I will need to do with myself. Thanks for sharing your own experience in this way and how you worked through and continue to work through that.

 

[Tinwen]

I know that "Baby" is obviously a very common pet name, and a default for many people. But we have a Dd/lg D/s dynamic in the bedroom, and our pet names for each other are/were "Daddy" and "Baby". ...
I always felt in my heart that it had meaning, because it did for me. It symbolized not only the kinky dynamic we have, but also that I can feel safe and cared for by him. I'm embarrassed about how much it meant to me, and how foolish I feel for thinking it was special.

Well, I would feel hurt on finding out Please don't feel embarrassed.

What this tells you right here is that you have a need (or a deep wish) to feel special, safe and cared for. Although part of it could be "ego" or "conditioning", it's IMHO an important and valid relationship need of all people.
While it may not be wise to rely completely upon relationships to meet our emotional needs, it's upon you to figure out if a poly relationship with this man (who's possibly treating women somewhat interchangeably) is enough for you to feel well in this context.

edit: I'm a little biased due to a yesterday's event, when I recognized the need in myself - see my blog.

 

[dichotomiss]

Thank you Tinwen, that's actually pretty incredible advice. <3

 

[PinkPig]

All of the above LOL!

Blue had many similarities with your bf. While I don't feel that viewing porn is necessarily objectifying women, it can be and I sometimes felt that is what it was for Blue. But, like all people, he wasn't one way or another, he was a complex person who sometimes objectified women (in my opinion), but more frequently did not. Sometimes he viewed women a bit interchangeably, mostly he didn't.

I think it comes down to whether your needs are being filled...and if they aren't, whether you each can make adjustments...or whether it's just a fundamental difference that can't be adjusted for. And, either way, what you can learn about yourself and how you can grow as a result of the relationship (whether it continues or not, whether you're poly or mono.)

I do think the need to be seen and valued as the unique person that we each are, is part of the human condition. There's nothing wrong with that desire. We are all unique...so wanting that uniqueness or specialness to be validated by our partners is a valid desire, imo. It's just that, for me, it can easily become an ego thing - wanting to compare my connection with lover to the lover's connection to another person and rank them (by considering myself more necessary or special to my lover,) My connection to lover can be unique, special, and irreplaceable and so can metamore's connection to lover. It doesn't devalue my connection or me, just because metamore is also unique and special. Actually, imo, ranking them devalues both connections. If my lover is seeing me as the unique person that I am and metamore as the unique person he/she is, then both are irreplaceable, not comparable, and it doesn't devalue either for the other to be so. That's what I'm referring to when I mention ego. That need to be more special or more unique than someone else.

That's why I mention looking for the reasons it bothered you...and looking for patterns in how M treats you and other women.

Most importantly though, it's looking at what you need/want and whether this relationship can give you that. Because in the end, that's what matters.

 

[Bluebird]

I call both of my husbands "sweetie" but they each have at least one name that is uniquely theirs. I call PunkRock "loobaloo" or "looba" or "loverface." DarkKnight is "my heart" or my "firstname-in heart." I equally refer to them as "sugar tits" or "jerkface," depending on how I am feeling. lololol

What's funny is that my nicknames for PunkRock are the exact same nicknames he calls me. DarkKnight calls me by my first name "of my heart" or "My firstname."

I would definitely be hurt if they called anyone else these names. I think wanting to feel special and unique is a common feeling and not a weakness.

 

[dichotomiss]

A little update:

I did a lot of thinking about this yesterday and wrote my feelings out about how and why the name Baby felt special to me, and how sad I felt to lose it as his moniker for me. I shared my feelings with M and asked him last night if he would consider keeping that name for me, and finding another for V and anyone else going forward.

It was an interesting conversation. This is the first time (in my memory) that I have asked him very specifically to have a certain limitation in place in any of his other relationships. For me, asking him to find another pet name to call his girlfriends so that the one he gave me could be special to me, is not a Big Restriction. He hesitated about it though, and explained his hesitation by sighing and saying, "Well this will set a certain precedent, and now we're going to get into establishing rules of how we can and can't be with other people."

My response was that I am not interested in placing a lot of restrictions on him; however, I have a need to feel like certain parts of our own relationship with him are special, sacred and safe. Sharing the same pet name with my metamours does not do that for me. I was actually kind of shocked at his hesitation—I am not asking for the world here, just a pet name to remain my own.

As this was the very first time I was making such a request, and as it seemed like a pretty understandable and small request, I felt a sense of foreboding about the relationship at his hesitation. At that moment, I realized that if I wasn't going to be able to request such things without causing him to feel smothered, and if I couldn't trust him to understand my feelings or care about them enough to look out for them on his own by not doing something similarly thoughtless in the future, that things just were not going to work between us. And I told him as much, in a measured but firm way.

I understand his hesitation, because nobody would like another party to dictate how they can and can't interact with or develop a relationship with someone else. I certainly wouldn't like huge restrictions to be placed on my developing relationship with A. I explained that to M, and I think we've reached an understanding. He explained that his own hesitation was fear based on past experiences in relationships, where he was given a lot of restrictions.

 

[Marcus]

I am not interested in placing a lot of restrictions on him; however, I have a need to feel like certain parts of our own relationship with him are special, sacred and safe. Sharing the same pet name with my metamours does not do that for me.

I think his reaction was spot on. This is your placing a restriction on how your partner can interact with their other partners, based solely on your own insecurity. Lots of couples do this, as far as I can tell it's the industry standard, but in my opinion working on your insecurities would be more constructive.

At that moment, I realized that if I wasn't going to be able to request such things without causing him to feel smothered, and if I couldn't trust him to understand my feelings or care about them enough to look out for them on his own by not doing something similarly thoughtless in the future, that things just were not going to work between us. And I told him as much, in a measured but firm way.

You consider his actions "thoughtless", but it's important to keep in mind that this is purely based on your own perspective.

You two are coming at this from two very different places, which is totally fine, and it's important to get that stuff out in the open. This way, if one or both of you find that you are not willing to adjust to your partner, you can make adjustments as needed.

I understand his hesitation, because nobody would like another party to dictate how they can and can't interact with or develop a relationship with someone else.

As far as I have seen, some people live for this stuff - setting restrictions on their partner. It's kind of the "starter set" for people who are not yet accustomed to dealing with their own insecurities. It's not something that most of us learn as we are growing up, so those kinds of lessons can be scary and difficult to work through.

 

[opalescent]

I've called many people over the years 'sweetie, baby, hon, sweetheart' and so on. I've loved every single one of those people and every one of them I loved in a unique way specific to them. The nicknames might be generic but my love and care was not.

 

[kdt26417]

I'm really indifferent about giving/receiving a pet name, and willing to take direction (e.g. do use this name, don't use that name). It's the thought that counts, right?

 

[Magdlyn]

I think it is quite common to have different pet names for different partners! I was married for 30 years and we called each other honey. Now with my current nesting partner, we call each other baby. She calls her bf Master and he calls her [a "rude" earthy name that reflects their agreed upon power exchange].

I think it's quite common in D/s circles for the D to tell the s to pick a moniker for him or herself. And that is who they are. Any other partner will have their own pet or little or slave name. Your bf may not be aware that this is a common problem with a common solution, based on manners and respect, and not "restrictive" in a way that denotes YOU trying to control HIM.

Of course, you two didn't have this agreement from the start, so if calling his other partners "Baby" is already habit with him, I could see it feeling awkward to change it now. Perhaps you could both think about how many D/s couples deal with naming their Other, and keep it in mind if and when partners change for either of you.

 

[vinsanity0]

Ah,,,but would it be a problem if the OP hadn't asked? I can't think of a healthy reason to ask what a partner calls their other partners. Knowing certainly hasn't contributed to the health of their relationship.

 

[Tinwen]

This seems to be a dividing topic.

To me especially the mindset 'I don't place big restrictions, just small ones' seems like a very slippery slope. Dichotomis, I must agree that, small restriction or big, it is a precedent. Also, it doesn't quite matter if you think it's a small restriction, but whether he and his other girfriends think so too. It's in the realm of "only promis this, if you're 100% comfortable". It might be less conflicting to choose some other "special" name, although I understand that it might be less satisfying at this point.

It would be better to recognize the need for specialty and honor it in ways you both want to. Also, the trust issue - I would say this does call for more empathy and communication. This one was a very unfortunate case of unspoken expectations - and although it is ultimatelly on the person having expectations to communicate them, it's not always possible for various reasons, and also it is a burden having to do too much of this kind of clarifying - so it is a huge help if the other person can empathise and guess possible hang-ups, a skill that certainly can be cultivated.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Calling all of his girl-friends "Baby" is a great way to avoid needing to remember hard stuff, like names.

IMNSHO, he's a bit of a whingy dick, who wants to fuck around freely with as little effort as possible, & is happy to drop the "poly" PC card whenever boring stuff like communication is actually required. Like, when he heaved a three-year-old's dramatic sigh, rolled his eyes toward the ceiling (asking God for the strength to continue dealing calmly with the idiots overpopulating his life), & complained Well this will set a certain precedent, and now we're going to get into establishing rules of how we can and can't be with other people.

I hope you are properly ashamed for expecting so much of this saint you crucify so unjustly at every turn.

 

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Calling all of his girl-friends "Baby" is a great way to avoid needing to remember hard stuff, like names.

IMNSHO, he's a bit of a whingy dick, who wants to fuck around freely with as little effort as possible, & is happy to drop the "poly" PC card whenever boring stuff like communication is actually required. Like, when he heaved a three-year-old's dramatic sigh, rolled his eyes toward the ceiling (asking God for the strength to continue dealing calmly with the idiots overpopulating his life), & complained Well this will set a certain precedent, and now we're going to get into establishing rules of how we can and can't be with other people.

I hope you are properly ashamed for expecting so much of this saint you crucify so unjustly at every turn.

You can turn down the sarcasm metre here a touch, and keep in mind the OP is new to Poly and the Forum.

Try to keep some civility, compassion and save the smugness for a more appropriate venue.

 

[Ravenscroft]

You're correct. Let me provide some focus --

He's a whingy dick, & is happy to drop the "poly" PC card whenever boring stuff like communication is actually required.

Like, complaining Well this will set a certain precedent, and now we're going to get into establishing rules of how we can and can't be with other people.

In that, he's clearly stating that even making an attempt to clarify his understanding of what you just said is pointless.

If that was indeed indicative of how he phrased his response, then he's clearly intending to set you up as domineering (for trying to "set a precedent" without his input), controlling ("establishing rules"), narrow-minded ("how we can and can't be"), & distrustful ("other people"), among other points.

At the very least, he expects you'll back off, & avoid bringing up such matters in the future, or even those that are half so trivial, else he will again remind you of your imperfections & failings.

All in all, he's demonstrably apt at anti-communication tactics, & willing to spring them for rather minor disagreements. This does not speak well for his reasonableness in a situation of any significance.