Wife has ended poly

Well they do in the Catholic ceremonies I've attended. The priests always read the list of vows separately for each partner and it always included "obey" in both of them. I haven't attended one of these since I was in my 20s, but I'm hard pressed to believe that NO ONE does this anymore. There are plenty of religious people who still do this.
I can't believe a Catholic man would ever vow to obey his wife, and for that to be written into the common vows at any point in Catholic or Christian history.


Even a woman's promise to obey was removed from vows in the reformed Catholic Church 1970s. A letter of Paul in the Biblical canon (technically one of the pseudoPaulines, from the "school of Paul") told women to "submit" to their husbands in all things. She was to love, cherish and obey him, according to the vows added in the 16th century, and the man was to love, cherish and worship her.
 
Last edited:
I think this whole topic is sort of irrelevant.

If we go into any space where people discuss relationships and you get an idea of expectations, you'll see that the default is a monogamous couple where they are expected to have varying boundaries around what is acceptable. You'll see long debates about whether it's okay for partnered colleagues to have a meal together alone etc.

For a lot of us poly people, it's fundamentally against our relationship ethos for a question like "are you allowed to talk to X?" to be raised. But it's just a semantical thing.

If we ask "are you allowed to talk to X and still have your current relationship continue peacefully?", then we're essentially asking if X is on the "messy list".

The concept of asking permission becomes moot unless you can control the actions of the other. And we can never do that. We'd have to resort to abuse and even then, maybe they'd successfully defend themselves and do it anyway. So of course any spouse can speak to someone they've been forbidden not to.

That's why we are left with asking one if they're prepared to (further) rock their current relationship to exercise their ability to communicate/interact with X. That's what we mean when we talk about whether people like the OP are "allowed" to talk to the vetoed person. Or the OP talks about being "disallowed" from interacting with the vetoed person.

The OP is aware they have laid the foundations of a relationship where there is an expectation of exclusivity/monogamy/mononormativity. That's why the question of being allowed/disallowed is relevant.




Just on a side note, don't think poly people are totally immune to the concept of allowing and disallowing a partner. When we veer onto other topics like contraception or kids, then we as a group are more comfortable about language that relates to allowing or disallowing our partners to do certain things.

Yes, most poly people these days are against vetoes. However more are comfortable dictating the contraceptive methods between their partner and other people. Or forbidding financial commitments with other partners or co-parenting. You'll see they quickly slip into that possessive language when they feel they have to defend their position.
 
I think this whole topic is sort of irrelevant.

If we go into any space where people discuss relationships and you get an idea of expectations, you'll see that the default is a monogamous couple where they are expected to have varying boundaries around what is acceptable. You'll see long debates about whether it's okay for partnered colleagues to have a meal together alone etc.

For a lot of us poly people, it's fundamentally against our relationship ethos for a question like "are you allowed to talk to X?" to be raised. But it's just a semantical thing.

If we ask "are you allowed to talk to X and still have your current relationship continue peacefully?", then we're essentially asking if X is on the "messy list".

The concept of asking permission becomes moot unless you can control the actions of the other. And we can never do that. We'd have to resort to abuse and even then, maybe they'd successfully defend themselves and do it anyway. So of course any spouse can speak to someone they've been forbidden not to.

That's why we are left with asking one if they're prepared to (further) rock their current relationship to exercise their ability to communicate/interact with X. That's what we mean when we talk about whether people like the OP are "allowed" to talk to the vetoed person. Or the OP talks about being "disallowed" from interacting with the vetoed person.

The OP is aware they have laid the foundations of a relationship where there is an expectation of exclusivity/monogamy/mononormativity. That's why the question of being allowed/disallowed is relevant.

I apologize for continuing the long somewhat irrelevant meta conversation about wedding vows including the promise to obey for either sex. I'm such a comparative religions geek.


Just on a side note, don't think poly people are totally immune to the concept of allowing and disallowing a partner. When we veer onto other topics like contraception or kids, then we as a group are more comfortable about language that relates to allowing or disallowing our partners to do certain things.

Yes, most poly people these days are against vetoes. However more are comfortable dictating the contraceptive methods between their partner and other people. Or forbidding financial commitments with other partners or co-parenting. You'll see they quickly slip into that possessive language when they feel they have to defend their position.
I don't think of myself as dictating to my bf that he must use condoms with his other partners/prospective partners/play partners. He and I agreed it just made sense, was safer, etc. Maybe some polyamorous people do dictate it, and others agree in theory but then break the "rule" or agreement in the heat of the moment or because, from talking with the new person, they determine them to be very low risk (have been married to one person and definitely mono for ages, have been entirely celibate, or something else).

And if a couple can't agree on the kid issues, whether they are mono or poly, the standpoint isn't dictating what the other can or can't do, it's more like: "If you want kids and I don't, we aren't compatible, we better break up," or, "If you want kids with your other partner, maybe we should split up. I don't want to be partnered with you [man] if you have to be over there [at gf's place] taking care of your infant all the time," or, "I don't want to live with you [woman] if you're here taking care of that other guy's baby, if he wants to come here and help, etc."
 
I apologize for continuing the long somewhat irrelevant meta conversation about wedding vows including the promise to obey for either sex. I'm such a comparative religions geek.

I don't think of myself as dictating to my bf that he must use condoms with his other partners/prospective partners/play partners. He and I agreed it just made sense, was safer, etc. Maybe some polyamorous people do dictate it, and others agree in theory but then break the "rule" or agreement in the heat of the moment or because, from talking with the new person, they determine them to be very low risk (have been married to one person and definitely mono for ages, have been entirely celibate, or something else).

And if a couple can't agree on the kid issues, whether they are mono or poly, the standpoint isn't dictating what the other can or can't do, it's more like: "If you want kids and I don't, we aren't compatible, we better break up," or, "If you want kids with your other partner, maybe we should split up. I don't want to be partnered with you [man] if you have to be over there [at gf's place] taking care of your infant all the time," or, "I don't want to live with you [woman] if you're here taking care of that other guy's baby, if he wants to come here and help, etc."
I think generally people here speak that way, but when you think about poly people even just in online spaces, it varies more.

I'll give you an example of how even here, the thinking varies a lot.

Fundamentally, I think the agreement to live with another autonomous adult means you can't hold them to agreements about things like guests or chores. Basically anything that's about how they choose to live in their space.

Of course I make agreements with people I live with and stick to them. But that's because I've chosen to live with those people and want us to enjoy some mutual happiness and comfort while we do. Those agreements aren't as numerous as one might think. It's mostly compatibility. I live with people who are compatible with my lifestyle and move on when we no longer match as well.

So for me, the very question of attempting to dictate when your partner brings their friends or lovers home doesn't exist in my world. How could I ever tell an adult they can't bring their chosen guests into their home?

The downside of living with other adults is that they can live as they wish and I have little power to stop them. It's why I choose my housemates so carefully.

So when we have a topic that's about partners coming over, I have to shift my thinking towards it being an agreement issue. My instinct is to query why anyone thinks they can forbid someone from bringing guests to their home. To me, the only real ethical solution is to move into your own space. But when people come in with a "visiting metamour" issue, they already have a working relationship where they make "agreements" that quash the autonomy of the other. And they don't want to let go of that. There are too many benefits.
 
I think generally people here speak that way, but when you think about poly people even just in online spaces, it varies more.

I'll give you an example of how even here, the thinking varies a lot.

Fundamentally, I think the agreement to live with another autonomous adult means you can't hold them to agreements about things like guests or chores. Basically anything that's about how they choose to live in their space.

Of course I make agreements with people I live with and stick to them. But that's because I've chosen to live with those people and want us to enjoy some mutual happiness and comfort while we do. Those agreements aren't as numerous as one might think. It's mostly compatibility. I live with people who are compatible with my lifestyle and move on when we no longer match as well.
So you have platonic (?) roommates who just naturally are coming in with a shared idea of how doing chores should go. Whether that's taking out the trash, to sharing or not sharing food, cooking, clearing up clutter, taking care of pets, dishes in the sink/on the counter, who does the common rooms' floors, cleans the bathrooms, etc., etc. So you don't need to "hold them to agreements" because the agreements are naturally never an issue?
So for me, the very question of attempting to dictate when your partner brings their friends or lovers home doesn't exist in my world. How could I ever tell an adult they can't bring their chosen guests into their home?
I think when you have platonic roommates it is different than when you are living with a beloved romantic sex partner. Your domestic partner (non-platonic) may have been used to walking around the house naked or nearly so (assuming it was just the two of you and there were no additional platonic roomies). They may not want to see PDAs, they may not want another person having sex in their bed. I think people can get more territorial when living with their lover.

My gf pixi and I don't often like to share space often with our metamours because, in the past, several of my partners got crushes on pixi and that made things awkward, because we don't like to share partners. So we have an arrangement that is in between parallel and KTP. I think, even if I was living with a platonic roomie, if my bf came over and got a crush on her, it would be awkward. What if he broke up with me and kept coming over to date my roomie? Yikes.

Now, young poly people might be fine with that, I guess. (Or not?) Rob is dating Heather, and he gets a crush on her roommate Kyle. He keeps dating Heather and Kyle. Now suddenly you have a V all living together. Maybe they even have threeway sex! Woohoo! Then, for some reason, Rob and Heather break up, but Rob and Kyle don't, and Heather is in the next room and hears them having sex. Awkward and painful!
The downside of living with other adults is that they can live as they wish and I have little power to stop them. It's why I choose my housemates so carefully.
It's great to choose roommates carefully, for sure.
So when we have a topic that's about partners coming over, I have to shift my thinking towards it being an agreement issue. My instinct is to query why anyone thinks they can forbid someone from bringing guests to their home. To me, the only real ethical solution is to move into your own space. But when people come in with a "visiting metamour" issue, they already have a working relationship where they make "agreements" that quash the autonomy of the other. And they don't want to let go of that. There are too many benefits.
I guess, whether you're living with an actual partner, or just roomies, you all have to decide on them having guests... Not just the sex/poly part, but the noise levels, the use of the kitchen, the use of your "special cup!", hogging the TV, or watching obnoxious shows, god knows what. All the things that make people incompatible will hinder how it goes with guests.

I mean, my parents used to love to entertain. Usually it was cocktail parties or dinner parties, but often they had overnight guests. All guests start to smell like fish after 2 or 3 days. I think they all shared that feeling. And neither of them wanted to have guests over every day, especially during the week. Also, they might host guests, but there was an understanding that the guests would return the favor, so no one felt like they were shelling out for food and drink all the time.
 
So you have platonic (?) roommates who just naturally are coming in with a shared idea of how doing chores should go. Whether that's taking out the trash, to sharing or not sharing food, cooking, clearing up clutter, taking care of pets, dishes in the sink/on the counter, who does the common rooms' floors, cleans the bathrooms, etc., etc. So you don't need to "hold them to agreements" because the agreements are naturally never an issue?
I've made the mistake of living with people who aren't on the same page as me. I have absolutely no right to make them do what i think they should be doing. So now, I'd only live with people who I already know live on a way that I deem decent. The last platonic person i lived with, no we didn't have to make such agreements. We were both adults of a certain age.


Your domestic partner (non-platonic) may have been used to walking around the house naked or nearly so (assuming it was just the two of you and there were no additional platonic roomies). They may not want to see PDAs, they may not want another person having sex in their bed. I think people can get more territorial when living with their lover.
You can't just walk around naked when you live with someone because they may have brought guests over in their space. If you want to walk around naked all the time, live alone!

People are allowed to bring their partners home and kiss them. The idea of me telling someone else that they can't have their partner in their home is just not in my vocabulary. If I don't like seeing my partners with their partners, I need to live alone!

If I share a bed with someone, it's their bed too. The idea of telling someone that they can't have sex in their bed doesn't sit well with me either. Separate beds is the way to go. Not me making rules about the bed my partner calls their own.

And yes, this is my point, people become territorial in ways they would usually not and I think aren't ethical. I don't think it's okay to dictate these things of a partner but not a roommate, and I don't think it's okay to attempt to control a roommate that way either.
you all have to decide on them having guests... Not just the sex/poly part, but the noise levels, the use of the kitchen, the use of your "special cup!", hogging the TV, or watching obnoxious shows, god knows what.
I mean yeah you can talk about it, but if someone doesn't agree to something, they're under no obligation to follow it. They can live in the way they choose to.

This is why living alone is such a good idea.

Anyway my point is that although I see things this way, most People have moved in with a partner because they want to have this level of shared control over each other. It's a step on the relationship escalator. And the expectation remains that you have to check in with each other and ensure the other is okay with whatever plans you have for your shared home. I'm just saying that really I don't believe in that, just the majority of people who come with that problem do think that way. Therefore I have to adjust to it.
 
So, my girlfriend's other partner basically wanted her to be his wife. He would swear he didn't, but used words like 'primary partner' who 'meets my needs and supports all the things I need', including helping him take care of his kids, etc. Basically, a wife. She didn't want that. He also was not happy that she was 'doing better' at ENM than he was (far more common for the woman to have more success, as we all know...interesting twist in this thread!). However, when HE was going on dates, he would tell women that he already had a 'primary partner' and was looking for a secondary partner. This is something most women don't want to sign up for, of course...why would they? No one likes to be treated as secondary. It's one thing if there are some inherent differences (I'm married and live with my wife, which creates some practical hierarchy, but I do everything I can to overcome that). But they didn't live together, weren't married, etc. He never tried to veto our relationship, but he definitely tried to limit it in very specific ways (like he didn't like when she came grocery shopping with me, because that's 'too domestic').

Anyway, they broke up this last weekend, even though their relationship was a year and half and ours is only half a year. It wasn't over me, BUT certainly the relationship with me helped expose a lot of these issues. My gf didn't like any of it, and eventually was able to end it as a result. I just stayed out of it.

What's my point? Most poly advice includes that some notion that the length of relationships should not be the determining factor in which ones are more important/working for you. I think that's true as a general point, and worth internalizing. At the same time, I understand the people who say that in reality, that kind of history often does weigh into choices of this sort. How could it not?

But I do think people sometimes go into a version of the sunk-cost fallacy on this one. Sometimes relationships aren't working anymore, and the fact that we've put lots of time/work into it is not sufficient reason to continue it. For ME, the OP is a version of that. The request that I limit my other relationship due to insecurities and keeping score is a deal breaker for me. But that doesn't mean it is for everyone. It's just not what I see as part of a healthy relationship (mono or poly). Score keeping/comparisons never end well; never. Equity is important; equality is impossible. Fairness, yes. We have to have the same things? Nope!
 
(far more common for the woman to have more success, as we all know...interesting twist in this thread!)
We have actually found it to be different for poly. Sex? Yes, my wife can find scores of men that will have sex with her, on a regular basis even, but to actually invest some sort of emotion for a relationship? That's the part she couldn't find. Quite a few poly groups we are in it seemed to be the same. Women struggled to find a man that wanted to have a meaningful relationship.
So when my wife and I joined various dating sites, after day 1 I had 2 people that liked my profile, she had 300. Yet I am the one who has had a year long relationship.
 
Ah, good point. Yes, if the goal is a meaningful relationship, things change. A LOT of men think they are up for dating a poly woman but in fact are not. You really have to date other poly people to make this work. That's been the experience of poly women I know. Otherwise, most men will eventually want to escalate or bail in ways that will not work for someone is already married. Fair point, for sure. It's kind of a quality vs. quantity thing.
 
Back
Top