V-triad: One wants Parallel, two want Kitchen Table

[KC43]

Same thing I am interested in. Granted some want a more normal relationship of two people with a girl friend on the side. I would rather have a kitchen table relationship.

I'm not sure why you refer to "two people with a girlfriend on the side" as a "more normal" relationship. That is one way to do poly, but far from the only one or the most common one. To be honest, out of the poly people I know in person and online, I can only think of one configuration that's "two people with a girlfriend on the side." My personal configuration is that I have a husband and two other--male--partners. My partners are also poly and date other women. I don't date women at all, because I have no interest in doing so.

(This is a thread derail and has nothing to do with the OP's question, but it's the second thing I've seen from TheWind stating or implying that a triad is the "normal" poly thing and I wanted to address it. I'm happy to delete this post or start a new thread.)

 

[lunabunny]

I'm not sure why you refer to "two people with a girlfriend on the side" as a "more normal" relationship.

(This is a thread derail and has nothing to do with the OP's question, but it's the second thing I've seen from TheWind stating or implying that a triad is the "normal" poly thing and I wanted to address it. I'm happy to delete this post or start a new thread.)

KC43, TheWind already started a thread entitled "Sex, Why is it always about sex?" if you want to address that particular topic over there.

In regards to the OP's dilemma... I agree with Vinsanity's last comment 100%, for the record.

If there is no progress with F1's self-work within in a reasonable time frame, it's up to the "M" in this situation to figure out what's most important to him... if he wants to remain in that relationship) (his marriage... and/or what style of poly he is really up for, long-term.

Assuming F1 has freely consented to the poly relationship that exists and claims to be non hierarchical, she is acting in a hypocritical fashion. Regardless, F2 cannot continually "inflict" her presence on F1 in her own home. And M needs to be more decisive and not allow this situation to drag on.

 

[GalaGirl]

Doesn't have to be only up to the M.

F2 could decide she's no longer up for doing poly in this grouping and could bow out.

F1 could decide she's no longer up for doing poly like this and bow out. The hinge isn't the only one who calls the shots.

For this to keep going it has to be a "3 yes" so if they all try, and after a period of time and nothing is changing? Like a "same old song, different day" thing? Anyone one of them could choose to stop participating in it.

Galagirl

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Not wanting to hang out with your metamours doesn't necessarily spell insecurity and nobody is obliged to do so.

If the hinge is truly unhappy at the arrangement, they need to assess their compatibility with the partner who will not consent to change. My guess is that they might want the added opportunity that would come with a more equal style of living, but they understand it is not a possibility with this partner and they value the relationship more than the potential opportunity. Basically I don't think the Hinge needs this change as much as the OP. He might want it, but doesn't need it.

I understand that without F1 consenting to allow F2 more time in her space, it makes it hard for Hinge and F2 to develop the same type of relationship F1 has with Hinge. A commitment to non-hierarchy doesn't mean you have to facilitate your partner's relationships. It doesn't mean I have to ensure their other relationships have the resources necessary to make all relationships equal. It's up to me to distribute resources in a way that sustains my relationships in the way I want to have them. Not my partners. All I can do is try to find partners who are compatible with what I seek.

 

[Ravenscroft]

What are your opinions?

Mine is simple enough: until you -- like ALL of you -- give up -- like TOTALLY -- the following, you are hosed:

non-hierarchical established couple

You can be couplist, or non-heirarchal.

Choose.

Now.

Get back to us.

 

[lunabunny]

Doesn't have to be only up to the M.

F2 could decide she's no longer up for doing poly in this grouping and could bow out.

F1 could decide she's no longer up for doing poly like this and bow out. The hinge isn't the only one who calls the shots.

For this to keep going it has to be a "3 yes" so if they all try, and after a period of time and nothing is changing? Like a "same old song, different day" thing? Anyone one of them could choose to stop participating in it.

Galagirl

No, it doesn't have to be up to M, alone.

And yes, it could be up to either of the females to make a change.

However, that's not the situation here.

Given that neither of the females appears ready or willing to break up, and both are pushing to do poly their own way (i.e. both want to live the relationship style that fits their own needs, with M) and aren't willing to compromise... it looks like it'll be up to M to make a decision.

If F1 refuses to do "her" emotional self work and F2 won't agree to continue parallel poly with or without occasional threesomes - and NEITHER woman chooses to end it with their mutual partner - it seems like it's going to depend on who or what M feels more strongly about, in the end.

 

[UnicornHunted]

Within the confines of this V, F1 and F2 are both more or less "mono" in relation to the common hinge, M (F1's husband), correct?
I am not mono, despite having a far deeper connection with M than my other casual partners. We are all "allowed" (I hate that word) to see others, but I am currently the only lady doing so. M is comfortable with idea of either of us seeing others, in whatever capacity.


I assume that F2's (your?) involvement with M began ethically and F1 consented to the relationship (i.e. was not coerced).
Yes, I'm F2. Yes, there was (and is) full knowledge of everything that happened in mine and my partner's relationship, every step of the way. And, I might add, encouragement until recently.

- Does F1 consider herself to be polyamorous, regardless of this particular relationship scenario?
This is something that has been recently called into question. Part of healthy relationship is being able to choose whether you desire to participate in a mono or poly relationship. Everyone, including her, assumed that is what we all were doing. But in practice, it's something that may have changed for her. I don't believe she has a solid answer to this, yet.


- Does she have another partner of partners, or did she at any time during the past ten years (duration of their marriage)?
Yes, several. Before they were married (and coupled) and after they were married. They started out actively polyamorous, and have never considered closing it.


- Did M have other partners before you?
Yes, many over the course of his coupling with his wife, pre and post marriage.

- If the answers to any of the above are "yes", do you know how those two, M and F1, conducted their previous relationships? i.e. What type of poly did they practice before you came on the scene?
They both assumed they were poly-amorous (emphasis on amory), rather than "open, but hierarchical". However, they did not occasion into any relationships that rose to this current level. There has been a game change and a re-evaluation of what they actually believe in regards to poly. (What everyone believes is "ok" to be open to, regardless of where things stand currently). On that front, none of us believe you can (or should attempt to) predetermine how much love or connection a new partner will be allotted.

Did M always feel the way he currently does about wanting to integrate his relationships, kitchen table/family style, or are you the first person he has felt that strongly about? (If he didn't always feel this way, F1 may suspect F2 is trying to influence M to her/your way of thinking.)
As far as I know, I am the first person he has felt this strongly about, other than his wife. He has always been a homebody though, so having his loves close to hand is his first choice. Given that, perhaps he did want family style, but there were no 3rd parties that felt "right" for that setup. The consideration of undue influence is another reason why I stated that my opinion could easily be given less weight in calculations.

- Has F1 been "burned" in the past by a disastrous experience with a metamour or an unsuccessful attempt to bring another partner into the marital home?
No, all metas have been treated with respect in all directions. None of his or her metas were interested or practical in a cohabitation style setup, but it was considered briefly in the case of one of her past partners.


- Does she have low self esteem, issues with her physical appearance, a mental illness or disability that may be causing her to view herself as "less than" in comparison to F2, and subsequently view F2 as more of a potential threat or rival. (If so, F1 needs to work on her own issues, possibly with the help of a therapist.)
Yes there are self esteem issues, especially in reclaiming a sense of self outside the concept of "part of a couple", and she is working on them with a therapist. I'm not sure if and how much comparisonship has occurred, but there are a handful of available triggers there. I can't speak with any authority there, as none of those things have been communicated.

 

[UnicornHunted]

Are you saying F1 (the wife) always has some sort of "thing" and then the other two have to rush to attend to that? So the dynamic revolves around a queen bee? Like... trying to fill the never ending black hole?
Yes. This exactly. Though she puts the responsibility on her husband, which means plans made are scotched, I get to bugger off, and she accomplishes two things: 1) decreasing his available connection to me, and 2) increasing his perceived connection to her.
Alternately, she stews in inconsolable resentment if he's not present when she has "a thing", expecting him to immediately begin fixing it on his arrival home. This second one comes with a side of guilt trip for feelings of "abandonment". This "fixing" process has never taken less than a full day. (And it doesn't fix anything, it just makes the feelings less sharp).

What punishment? Who is doing the punishing?
See above. Perception that her feelings are his responsibility to "fix".

Granted, it's his half of the issue that he accepts this. It's his half of the issue that he has believed himself genuinely responsible for fixing her feelings for so long. He has made good progress on that front, but clearly it still happens. Offering support and reassurance is beautiful and should be available; but it has to be within the framework of encouragement to seek help to fix the issues, not the feelings.

 

[GalaGirl]

Yes. This exactly. Though she puts the responsibility on her husband, which means plans made are scotched, I get to bugger off, and she accomplishes two things: 1) decreasing his available connection to me, and 2) increasing his perceived connection to her.

Sounds like husband isn't telling her firm "No. This is not an emergency situation. We can address it when I come home. I am not canceling plans" or similar.

Are you telling him you don't like it when he cancels dates with you like this?

Alternately, she stews in inconsolable resentment if he's not present when she has "a thing", expecting him to immediately begin fixing it on his arrival home. This second one comes with a side of guilt trip for feelings of "abandonment". This "fixing" process has never taken less than a full day. (And it doesn't fix anything, it just makes the feelings less sharp).

So her two modes are...

1) Go aggressive and blow up/demand things?

2) Go passive-aggressive / poor lil ol me, you don't care about me, etc?

Is he oversharing things with you from their side of the V? Or she is?

What punishment? Who is doing the punishing?

See above. Perception that her feelings are his responsibility to "fix".

That is her perception. He does not have to agree.

Before they were together, how were they fixed? Did she fix them herself or she had other people in place to prop her up/do the emotional labor for her?

Granted, it's his half of the issue that he accepts this. It's his half of the issue that he has believed himself genuinely responsible for fixing her feelings for so long. He has made good progress on that front, but clearly it still happens.

This couple seems long enmeshed. Now that he's coming out of that enmeshment, she might view it as "losing him" or "losing my influence/power over him" rather than viewing it like "both of us moving toward a healthier dynamic."

Offering support and reassurance is beautiful and should be available; but it has to be within the framework of encouragement to seek help to fix the issues, not the feelings.

That sounds like what you think. Not necessarily what she thinks. Does she share this view?

I wonder why she would want to fix the issues. If having issues is how she gets what she wants -- his dancing attendance on her? If her issues get fixed, he stops attending as much. So how else would she meet her need for the majority of his attention on her? Esp if he wants to move toward sharing his attentions equally across other partners?

It's not like she's gonna go "No. I am never going to get past this" because then he might up and leave if he so strongly wants kitchen table poly. He might move on to build that with more compatible people for that and then she doesn't get ANY of his attention, much less the majority.

From her POV staying in the "vague space" may work out better for her. He stays in limbo hoping she will eventually come around. She gets all the attention. Might be win enough for her.

No, all metas have been treated with respect in all directions. None of his or her metas were interested or practical in a cohabitation style setup, but it was considered briefly in the case of one of her past partners.

Is it in that order? Or more like....

"No other meta was interested or were practical in a cohabitation style set up. (Ie: Not a threat). So it was easy to treat all metas with respect in all directions."​

Cuz now that you are her meta, who DOES seem interested and could work out in a cohabitation thing eventually... you are getting "queen bee" stuff and him running off to attend to her and breaking dates with you, and your voice not counting in this, etc. None of that sounds esp respectful from either of them.

It's a tough spot to be in. The only thing I can think of is to give it a time frame. A year, or whatever you pick.

See if in that time, new info comes to light, progress is made in therapy, or if things are basically the same or going downhill. If in that time frame things aren't any better?

You could bow out. Could tell M that you see he is WILLING to go there (toward kitchen table poly) but he is not actually ABLE. You've waited X long, and that's all you want to wait.

If he wants to go round and round with wife, he is free to choose that. But you don't have to.

Galagirl

 

[UnicornHunted]

Hello UnicornHunted,

Two things stood out for me while I was reading your post. First, F1 is essentially outvoted, F2 and M both want kitchen table. Second, F1's reasons for wanting parallel are weak, compared to F2's and M's reasons for wanting kitchen table, which are strong. If I have read correctly, then it seems that the thing to do is to convince F1 to change her mind, and that the key question to this thread is how to convince her, what to say to her so that she'll be convinced.

That's the trick - how does one convince someone who wants to preserve the "sanctuary" of their devoted couple's space to do otherwise? If that's where her heart is right now, everything said to the contrary will be tinted with a coercive or conniving brush. I won't do either of those things; how she shares her personal space always going to be her choice. All I can do is express my *own* desires, and try to reaffirm what she means to me. All the hinge can do in this case is express his own desires, and his needs when they arise, and reaffirm what she means to him. The trouble right now is that, "what she means to him" isn't "everything, best, most, and only."

 

[UnicornHunted]

I wonder why she would want to fix the issues. If having issues is how she gets what she wants -- his dancing attendance on her? If her issues get fixed, he stops attending as much. So how else would she meet her need for the majority of his attention on her? Esp if he wants to move toward sharing his attentions equally across other partners?

It's not like she's gonna go "No. I am never going to get past this" because then he might up and leave if he so strongly wants kitchen table poly. He might move on to build that with more compatible people for that and then she doesn't get ANY of his attention, much less the majority.

From her POV staying in the "vague space" may work out better for her. He stays in limbo hoping she will eventually come around. She gets all the attention. Might be win enough for her.

This is my fear. There is currently little "upside" on her end to fixing the dynamic. One of the family therapists went so far as to ask "Why would you want to change it if it was working well enough before?". His answer is basically "Because it would require returning to a place of emotional denial, and consenting to monogamy to keep things stable."

You're also spot on about the "metas being treated with respect" because they weren't "a threat". The current behavior dynamic is extremely disrespectful, as acknowledged by all three of us. Acknowledgement isn't prevention, however.

I'm willing to wait, but I am unwilling to stand in the crossfire or accept guilt for anything I have not actively done to earn it. Same is true of their couple's work. I've made it clear that I won't make any plans that include either of them that I'm not comfortable with having dashed. And that if my love desires to spend his time with me, he first needs to figure out tactics to deflect the guilt trip that may come with it. He cannot change what she feels, but he can change how he reacts to it.

 

[lunabunny]

Thank you for answering my questions so thoroughly, UnicornHunted. It certainly does help to fill out some important details in this picture that were formerly a little hazy.

I assume that F2's (your?) involvement with M began ethically and F1 consented to the relationship (i.e. was not coerced).
Yes, I'm F2. Yes, there was (and is) full knowledge of everything that happened in mine and my partner's relationship, every step of the way. And, I might add, encouragement until recently.


- Does F1 consider herself to be polyamorous, regardless of this particular relationship scenario?
This is something that has been recently called into question. Part of healthy relationship is being able to choose whether you desire to participate in a mono or poly relationship. Everyone, including her, assumed that is what we all were doing. But in practice, it's something that may have changed for her. I don't believe she has a solid answer to this, yet.



- If the answers to any of the above are "yes", do you know how those two, M and F1, conducted their previous relationships? i.e. What type of poly did they practice before you came on the scene?
They both assumed they were poly-amorous (emphasis on amory), rather than "open, but hierarchical". However, they did not occasion into any relationships that rose to this current level.

So what changed exactly, to make F1 reconsider the way she views polyamory? I agree that it seems like M's greater emotional investment in his relationship with you has been the trigger.

M's and your deep connection, and his desire to spread his time and attentions more evenly across his major relationships than he may have done in the past, appears to have caused whatever latent insecurities F1 was already harbouring to become more obvious... to the point where she has begun to act out by refusing to date others and clinging more tightly to her husband. In this way, perhaps she hopes to prove that he is and will be her "one and only, best and most important" - an attitude she is hoping he'll reciprocate by agreeing to minimise contact with you. (?)

There has been a game change and a re-evaluation of what they actually believe in regards to poly. (What everyone believes is "ok" to be open to, regardless of where things stand currently). On that front, none of us believe you can (or should attempt to) predetermine how much love or connection a new partner will be allotted.

"None of believe" - hmmm, see that's the problem here. Because whether or not F1 used to truly believe that (at least in theory), her recent behaviour seem to indicate she no longer does. From what I've gleaned from your posts, UnicornHunted, F1 appears to be trying to limit both the manner in which M and you connect and the time he chooses to allot to your relationship.

Did M always feel the way he currently does about wanting to integrate his relationships, kitchen table/family style, or are you the first person he has felt that strongly about? (If he didn't always feel this way, F1 may suspect F2 is trying to influence M to her/your way of thinking.)
As far as I know, I am the first person he has felt this strongly about, other than his wife. He has always been a homebody though, so having his loves close to hand is his first choice. Given that, perhaps he did want family style, but there were no 3rd parties that felt "right" for that setup.

As the previous exchange between you and GalaGirl indicates, I agree that the REASON for F1's/wife's change of attitude is because her "No.1" position in her husband's life has never seemed under "threat" before, or not to this extent.

There are some hallmarks of codependence re: husband and wife's interactions, especially in the way M responds to F1's various "crises". I think you're both aware of this, however, and seem to be working on making the necessary changes, which is a positive and necessary step if you aim to/claim to be practising non hierarchical polyamory.

F1 definitely needs to continue the work with her therapist if she plans to continue in a polyamorous lifestyle/relationship. This work may take a long time, and it's possible she may string it out for as long as she can reap whatever results she wants from NOT successfully achieving the aims of therapy. Therefore, I agree that you and/or M need to put a time limit on it, after which you'll reassess the state of the relationship/s involved here and make decisions accordingly.

 

[powerpuffgrl1969]

OP, now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty. With your first post, you painted a picture of you and your meta getting along soooo well; you just had ONE little problem.

The more you post, the more negative feelings you have about her are being revealed. As much as she does not treat you with respect, you certainly don't WRITE about her with respect.

This just does not sound like a workable situation, with more animosity being built between you and F1. Pushing her is just going to make her heels dig in more. She doesn't sound like she is someone you can "convince" in order to have things your way.

You and your hinge may decide that he and F1 can no longer have a relationship. That's fine. I just don't see the three of you living "happily ever after" in the way that you want.

 

[GalaGirl]

I'm willing to wait, but I am unwilling to stand in the crossfire or accept guilt for anything I have not actively done to earn it. Same is true of their couple's work. I've made it clear that I won't make any plans that include either of them that I'm not comfortable with having dashed.

At this time, I think that's the best you can do. Hold yourself separate from whatever they have going on with that side of the V.

As well as figure out your limit of tolerance for waiting/dealing with this. I cannot imagine you want to clock 50 years on this.

And that if my love desires to spend his time with me, he first needs to figure out tactics to deflect the guilt trip that may come with it.

He is not able to date you, and PRESENT on dates with you? Let his home problems be all his and not leak it on to you?

If that is what is happening, I think you could be more clear in your boundary and frame it "over here" where you are. Not "over there" where she is doing guilt trips.

I would have phrased the boundary more like "If you want a date with me, you have to be PRESENT and not bring all your other problems from elsewhere on the date." Because you are not a free therapist. And because how much fun is a date when all you do is listen to his other relationship's things?

Could also set your limit of tolerance for listening. He might have to deal with guilt trips at home after a date with you, but those are not your problem. He can talk to someone else for how to deal with them. It's ok for you to say "I am too close to this. Talk about these issues with someone outside the system. Not me."

One of the problems I see with situations like this with an enmeshed hinge is that if you stick around forever? He's got no reason to change his behavior either. Because he's got you both. Not in the ideal way, but perhaps that's "win enough" for him.

So it's "win enough" for the wife, who goes into "vague space" forever "working on it" but not really. And it's "win enough" for the hinge who wants to be with both partners. And the one it ends up sucking for the most is the other partner who gets told "you matter just as much" but in actions? Gets leftovers.

For your sake, I hope you set a firm time limit and these people deliver on their various ends of the sticks so you all can move forward together since you seem to want that.

But at the same time... remember that you can move it forward for just yourself if it just becomes a big drag and not longer a worthwhile return on your investment.You could decide to leave the V dynamic. It doesn't have to be only up to the male hinge how this turns out. You have choices too.

Galagirl

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

That's the trick - how does one convince someone who wants to preserve the "sanctuary" of their devoted couple's space to do otherwise? If that's where her heart is right now, everything said to the contrary will be tinted with a coercive or conniving brush. I won't do either of those things; how she shares her personal space always going to be her choice. All I can do is express my *own* desires, and try to reaffirm what she means to me. All the hinge can do in this case is express his own desires, and his needs when they arise, and reaffirm what she means to him. The trouble right now is that, "what she means to him" isn't "everything, best, most, and only."

To me, it sounds like she/they used to think that "equal relationships " would be a good thing but now they've tried it, she doesn't, and though he likes it, he ultimately won't do anything that will cause them to break up. That's why he is settling for this thing where he snatches time with you and pays for it later. My guess from experience is if/when you push for this to really stop, he will sadly decide to let you go or not meet your needs for long enough until you walk away. To put it simply, I don't think an equal relationship with you is more important to him than his relationship with his wife.

What I would advise you to try to stop doing is seeing her/them as bad people for trying a relationship style and it not working for them. It is unfair that you have signed up thinking you had the option of a potential future that isn't coming to fruition, but given they had never tried this in practice as "outside" relationships stayed within sort of casual parameters, you can't blame someone for trying something and finding out it isn't for them.

My advice to you would be to either walk away, or reevaluate what you can achieve out of this relationship. I don't think it's going to be a partner that is primary/nesting in the sense most use that word.

 

[Ravenscroft]

stop seeing her/them as bad people for trying a relationship style and it not working for them.

I'll step up & blame them for probably being less-than-good people.

They chose to claim "polyamory." To have any chance of success, polyamory requires both introspection & empathy, abilities that aren't inherent in people & often have to be learned (as you point out) from making honest mistakes. A "good person" would be fixing stuff -- the faulty relationship or the faulty underlying assumptions, or both -- or admitting incapability & giving up on the notion of polyamory.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I'll step up & blame them for probably being less-than-good people.

They chose to claim "polyamory." To have any chance of success, polyamory requires both introspection & empathy, abilities that aren't inherent in people & often have to be learned (as you point out) from making honest mistakes. A "good person" would be fixing stuff -- the faulty relationship or the faulty underlying assumptions, or both -- or admitting incapability & giving up on the notion of polyamory.

I guess my experience of these types of situations is that Hinge's true position is something along the lines of desiring the relationship change but not enough to uproot their entire lives. They're disappointed and maybe even a bit resentful and that's why they appear to be resistant but ultimately don't take the risk. Eventually, it will reach a point where they do make their (albeit reluctant) choice clear. Sooner with some than others.

I agree that it speaks of your integrity if you leave it too long but I have empathy for the mixed emotions on the journey.

 

[powerpuffgrl1969]

Maybe F1 would feel more secure and be more accommodating if the hinge and F2 agreed to take the "kitchen table" aspect out of the equation?

 

[1234567]

Two things strike me:

First, BS on being too new to carry weight after a year.

You are the world’s biggest expert on what works and doesn’t for you. And don’t you forget it Poly is mainly self-awareness and good boundaries, applied in a new scenario. After a year, you have a decent lay of the land.

Second, how much is wanting to spend time with your meta and how much is just not wanting to lose time with your partner?

It possibly sounds like you need more partner time. And you may not get it.

Can you go to the need beneath the need?

Do you need a family connection?
More time with your partners than the, I suspect, less than half time you’re getting?
Another partner?

One way to get at the heart of this is to ask- if parallel poly is a necessity,
What would make it feel okay?

 

[1234567]

I guess my experience of these types of situations is that Hinge's true position is something along the lines of desiring the relationship change but not enough to uproot their entire lives. They're disappointed and maybe even a bit resentful and that's why they appear to be resistant but ultimately don't take the risk. Eventually, it will reach a point where they do make their (albeit reluctant) choice clear. Sooner with some than others.

I agree that it speaks of your integrity if you leave it too long but I have empathy for the mixed emotions on the journey.

This. So well said. That’s my experience too- and assuming that the desire for change means it’s going to happen is a big mistake.