# Anyone here Poly?



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Polyamorous that is, not polysexual, lol.

I am dating a new woman and we are sooooooooooo alike. . .she talks about her guy friends and needing that social and/or emotional connection from them and how her last bf went apedung about it. Instead of getting jealous myself I asked her,

"SO what is it with you and John?" She said "Oh nothing. . .we go fishing together just talk and he comes over and fixes my things and his wife, who I am good friends with, said if something ever happened to her, she'd want them to get married."

So I said, "Oh, you're poly." She went frantically searching what that means and we have had interesting discussions on it. We are laughing about it. Because I have an ex-gf who I still love very much, but she is with a GREAT GUY right now and I am in total "compersion" (opposite of jealousy) that she and he are so happy. I am still friends with her and I totally beta dog (scram) whenever I sense he is threatened (which he shouldn't be).

Anyway, I must admit even I, being a pretty progressive guy, think it could be rather Utopian to think about, but I consider this forum pretty diverse so I thought I would come here and hear if anyone/couple have been in a polyamorous relationship. Or thought about. 

I'll accept moral judgments too, lol.

Now, please, I am not actually talking about swinging, nor even necessarily SEX, but affection, companionship, love (and yes, maybe sex, lol). How did it work? 

You know, maybe 1 person can't ever possibly meet all of our needs, you know?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I am not poly but I have close friends who are. It has worked out quite badly (1 divorce, one soon to be divorce) for both couples that I know. (Turns out that a lot of people really can't love 2 people at once, instead they transfer their love from one to the other).

I have no moral objections, and I think it is a lifestyle that works for *some* people. Unfortunately people do not seem very good at identifying if it will work for *them*. 

I know that being poly would not work for me.


----------



## straightshooter (Dec 27, 2015)

You can find out a lot more about poly and what is called ethical non monogamy by reading two books

"Opening Up"
"More Than Two"

The information you will get from them will be more accurate, realistic, and probably helpful than opinions you will receive from a forum such as this.

And yes, I have read these books when I mistakenly for a few weeks gave my WW the false impression ( her misunderstanding because I was at least reading them) that I was considering entering this kind of marriage.

Do some research and then form your own opinion.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Your life, personally I think 2 people are hard enough, as soon as you add more people the complications increase exponentially. It is no longer just you and your SO's relationship, now it's -

you and your SO 
you the other Woman,
the other woman and your SO
the three of you together
etc... 

2 people are hard enough to deal with. 



Scannerguard said:


> Because I have an ex-gf who I still love very much, but she is with a GREAT GUY right now and I am in total "compersion" (opposite of jealousy) that she and he are so happy. I am still friends with her and I totally beta dog (scram) whenever I sense he is threatened (which he shouldn't be).


Right here though you just sound creepy. Unless your ex-gf and her boyfriend are poly relationship why are you still secretly thinking of her this way? Your not in a poly relationship with her so why are you extending poly feelings towards her. I suspect they they would be unwanted. 

"Compersion" still implies some sort of romantic relationship with this woman and is inappropriate when you are not in one. No mono couple wants another man experiencing an "empathetic state of happiness and joy experienced when another individual experiences happiness and joy, and the term is regularly used by members of the polyamory community in the context of polyamorous relationships. It is used to describe when a person experiences positive feelings when a lover is enjoying another relationship."

That's just gross man.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Hey, I appreciate the replies and the judgments too.

To the judgmental post of "creepyness", well, why *wouldn't *you want someone to be happy for you? Why would you be threatened by that? I mean, it's not like they are "channeling" their bliss through me or whatever in some hippy state of "free love", but I loved her that much that I knew I couldn't make her happy and give her what she needed and this guy could very much. 

He is VERY good to her. I am sensitive enough to know any sort of OPEN display of affection would definitely "weird him out" with good reason so I mostly let them be. Show up at an occasional party. She and I went out for drinks one time as a thank for a favor I did for her. He knew about it and was cool (I guess because he knows I'm beta dog now, which I am). But you see, I can give her intellectual conversation that she SOOOOOOOOOOOOO craves that he just can't. He's more a "man's man" - handy, strong, silent. I am more the educated man. Once in awhile, I suspect she needs to connect on an intellectual level. (just what I sense)

Maybe compersion is the wrong word for this since the definition appears to be a "relationship" but well, we DO have a relationship. The relationship is one of friendship, which includes affection, no?

I mean, I think polyamorous is a spectrum concept. . .we are ALL polyamorous to some degree - you love others, not just one.

Odd we HONOR jealousy here but degrade compersion, huh? (just saying. . .I imagine your judgment is one others here share)

I think I have to agree with the "complications" part. . .and hey I wasn't suggesting we even move to some kind of "Free Love" but I ask you to consider this - READ THE THREADS HERE. A lot of them, MOST of them, have to do with insecurities and jealousy. If we only understand how some people may be. . .wouldn't a lot of these thread problems be solved?

You may be the jealous type (like my ex and my SO's ex). . .you may not do well in a relationship with me. But our ex-'s . .. great!!!

But don't worry, if it creeps you out, I promise I wouldn't be happy for you if you were happy, lol.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> I am not poly but I have close friends who are. It has worked out quite badly (1 divorce, one soon to be divorce) for both couples that I know. (Turns out that a lot of people really can't love 2 people at once, instead they transfer their love from one to the other)


Interesting.

I guess it challenges the notion that love is "not scarce" in concept, huh? (that is the theory of polyamory).

The theory goes, when you have 1 child born, and another child is born, you don't know love that first child "half as much", right? No, you love them both 100%.

Well, why would it necessarily be this way for significant others?

That's the THEORY anyway. Not saying it's right and your empirical observations may disprove it. Or the divorce had nothing to do with the polyamory, who knows. BTW, from what little I read, there are still boundaries in polyamory. . .you don't just screw around physically and emotionally.

It's an interesting concept. . .probably one I will study for awhile and leave by the wayside.

I think with women gaining financial independence and social independence and economic/political power, they have become less a "commodity" and so relationships are being redefined. Like men who wanted polygamy for sex, actually I think women will be the driver of this kind of lifestyle more than men, because men can't be to them all they want. Sex and Power and all that, you know?

This is why I find traditional marriage relationships SO fascinating.

I mean, how ****y of the both of you! How bold! 

You both think you can provide EVERY need for each other the rest of your lives? I think that's fascinating.

And sometimes it works!!!!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Yes. 


Google polyamorous percolations. If that board is still active, I suspect you will get more useful replies there. Everyone here knows 5 million people who are poly and all of those 5 million people's marriages ended in divorce. Go figure.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

100% failure rate, huh? Fascinating.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> 100% failure rate, huh? Fascinating.


All it takes to disprove this is a single data point. Consider me it. This is not the right place to discuss poly. It absolutely incenses some people to the point that they will make stuff up to support their hatred.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Scannerguard said:


> 100% failure rate, huh? Fascinating.



As it turns out, almost no one is okay long term with their spouse "loving" someone else. It invites competition over your own declared territory. Whether we admit it or not, we are territorial creatures. Sure, some deviant examples success will exist, but not with most people.

Things like polyamory are vogue due to the proliferation and decadence of existentialist philosophy. Just because they're vogue doesn't make them wise.

I think it's tremendously important to recognize that 1 person is unlikely to be everything to you. Asking them to provide novelty and stability, familiarity and distance, etc is not really a reasonable expectation for most folks. It's why you have friends. It's why you have hobbies. It's why you have other things in your life than just your spouse. 

Regarding having sex with multiple partners: well then maybe marriage and commitment are not for you.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> As it turns out, almost no one is okay long term with their spouse "loving" someone else


Really? I must be one of those "almost no ones." Maybe I am a big oddity, a freak. . .it's possible. I did the one person is everything thing for yearrrrrrrrrrrrs. It sucked. Really sucked. For both of us.

But don't all major religions call upon us to love one another, biological predispositions aside? Isn't that the ethic?

Are these religions then perverse in nature? 

I am not trying to be argumentative. . .you are only giving me what I feel is an expected viewpoint. And hey, I'm a life sciences guy. I get it. I think polyamorous people KNOW jealousy is ALWAYS there. . .they don't deny it exists, that we have base emotions. They just dont' necessarily think parameters (territory) should be defined by it. 

They attempt to overcome it and become secure with who they are and what they bring to the other person.

Utopian? Probably.

BTW, this discussion is LESS about sex and more about LOVE just so you know.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Really? I must be one of those "almost no ones." Maybe I am a big oddity, a freak. . .it's possible. I did the one person is everything thing for yearrrrrrrrrrrrs. It sucked. Really sucked. For both of us.


You're not. You are just posting on the wrong forum. Me thinks you are not actually trying to get information but defend your position. Put your fire proof undies on.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Scannerguard said:


> Really? I must be one of those "almost no ones." Maybe I am a big oddity, a freak. . .it's possible. I did the one person is everything thing for yearrrrrrrrrrrrs. It sucked. Really sucked. For both of us.
> 
> But don't all major religions call upon us to love one another, biological predispositions aside? Isn't that the ethic?
> 
> ...


Note that you brought religion into this, not me. I've appealed to no faith, or authority. 

I appealed to the reality of our biology. We are mostly territorial by nature. Inviting competition over your own territory is generally not a good idea. I brought this up in other threads recently, and there are a lot of people at TAM that don't want to admit it.

Can we control that nature? Yes, to a certain degree. The question would be should we? Does this nature serve a positive purpose? Is it wise to ignore it completely?

I also think you are conflating the concept of loving your neighbor (a very Xtian / Stoic / Buddhist concept, and not necessarily belonging to all religions) with the concept of having sex with whomever you please. 

Sex =/= Love.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Scannerguard said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I guess it challenges the notion that love is "not scarce" in concept, huh? (that is the theory of polyamory).


This article ran just last week in the NYT:

"Because time is limited, so, too, is the number of friends you can have, according to the work of the British evolutionary psychologist Robin I.M. Dunbar. He describes layers of friendship, where the topmost layer consists of only one or two people, say a spouse and best friend with whom you are most intimate and interact daily. The next layer can accommodate at most four people for whom you have great affinity, affection and concern and who require weekly attention to maintain. Out from there, the tiers contain more casual friends with whom you invest less time and tend to have a less profound and more tenuous connection. Without consistent contact, they easily fall into the realm of acquaintance. You may be friendly with them but they aren’t friends."

http://nyti.ms/2baMW6a


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Add another positive data point, while you're at it. Early in our relationship, it was also a poly relationship for a few years. It worked well, and ended well, and had only positive influences on our relationship. We'd consider another, in the right circumstances. But I do agree with @NobodySpecial, that this forum has too many aggressively intolerant posters to support a fair discussion.

The success rate is no better - and probably no worse - than for monogamous relationships. Which isn't very good! How many monogamous dating situations fail? How many monogamous marriages? And poly people can't marry additional partners, so are only left with dating scenarios.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I thrive being loved by one man.. and loving one man.. 

I'm far too much of a Romantic to ever open myself to a poly lifestyle.. it would go against everything I've ever wanted / dreamed of in an intimate relationship...

I greatly value exclusivity, commitment.... I want to share deeply with 1 special man... feeling a part of him.. sharing our ALL, making memories through a lifetime, watching our children grow, hand in hand till we're in our rocking chairs.. 

How is someone special to you.. if you are bonking a variety of them, this is not something I would understand.. .. so much of this is how people look at SEX.. if it's "just for pleasure" or it's more meaningful, tying to you another person, deep emotional strings attached.. .

I like a little porn but Threesomes have never turned me on either. 

But ya know.. we're all wired differently... there are those who get more of a HIGH, erotic satisfaction from "variety".. newness.. ..
"Novelty" with a soulmate , trying to keep things spicy & hot may not = the thrill of someone new ... 

For those not satisfied with monogamy -even if they Love their partners...but still yearn for more partners... I've always considered these people very low on the romantic bar.. they should be with like minded individuals of course...

Compatibility & understanding are essential here.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Nobody Special: I am completely lost with your attempted banter; I suppose there is an inside story here. Apparently there is a layer of sarcasm or bitterness there that I am failing to comprehend.

It's okay like I said if people want to judge my perhaps predisposition. . .I am not even saying I would practice.

No ulterior motive here (well, maybe I do like to argue a bit, but it's only to vet, not proselytize)

Cletus:

Yeah, good point. I have read that practicing polyamorous people have "primacy" in relationships and so forth. So, alpha male/female dog and beta dog (see we can be biological/mammalian and polyamorous, right?).

Normal.

Normal you would have a "main relationship" and a "side relationship."


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Scannerguard said:


> Normal you would have a "main relationship" and a "side relationship."


Not me. I find keeping one woman happy to be more than enough work.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Hey SA:

Good to hear from you again and thanks for you contribution. I really respect your contribution.

Again, this is LESS about sex and I mean that, although you enter it into ANY equation and it becomes extremely volatile, with good reasons.

Let me use an example that I take SEX out of the equation.

Me and my SO date and have sex monogamously. However, she has a guy who she has deep, emotional conversations, maybe even moved to tears on how touching he is to her heart on an emotional level. She feels fulfilled after talkilng to him.

I have a friend who we really SHARE a lot socially in common. We like to make kimchi, cook togther we both have kids, she's involved with a main guy but we sit and watch a movie and CUDDLE and laugh. Nothing else. 

Now yeah, i put the "cuddle" in there on purpose because I know enough psychology to just be dangerous, lol. Are we touching to stimulate each other to then go back to our "mates?" Meh. Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. I won't psychoanalyze my theoretical but maybe we both just like to cuddle/are touchy feely people.

And maybe our primary mates are not.

And at this point, I don't want this thread to be one of those 4-10 page long ones. . .it was just to gauge some initial thoughts and I think I have enough.

I do think it's a bit Utopian and probably *way* too complicated.

But it helps to understand each other if we are wired this way, even if neither of us practice or express it. I think we both ARE wired this way to some degree.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

No Cletus. . .

By your own research citation, you basically just said you have a main relationship and then it dwindles from there.

Love is apparently in finite supply was your thesis.

Unless you COMPLETELY cling to your mate, which hey, may work for you. 

Works for a lot of people. Didn't work for me in one relationship. . .she was a Stage 4 clinger. Not completely Stage 5, but getting there.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Nobody Special: I am completely lost with your attempted banter; I suppose there is an inside story here. Apparently there is a layer of sarcasm or bitterness there that I am failing to comprehend.


No I meant exactly what I said. This is not a poly friendly board except for a handful of people. Most of us don't talk much about it here because of the vitriol we get. There are other boards where people with actual experience living with polyamory for decades will know more about the topic than the people who supposedly know ALL about it from the handful of people they supposedly "know".



> It's okay like I said if people want to judge my perhaps predisposition. . .I am not even saying I would practice.
> 
> No ulterior motive here (well, maybe I do like to argue a bit, but it's only to vet, not proselytize)
> 
> ...


There are zillions of configurations. Not all poly people have primaries. The alpha and "beta" roles do not seem to play into it at all.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Oh, okay.

Well it is controversial so I didn't certainly expect everyone to jump and down and say, "Gee whiz, you may be onto something there! I'm going here."

I like to hear the counterpoints to it so it was fine. SA gave a good counterpoint and Cletus too.

If you know a little about it, challenges, successes, I'm open to listening even if others are not. Is this the reason for your Moniker - No One Special?

If you can summarize, I'm all ears. It's beyond the scope of this type of forum to give a complete analysis so, 3-5 paragraphs, feel free to even ramble a bit.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Scannerguard said:


> No Cletus. . .
> 
> By your own research citation, you basically just said you have a main relationship and then it dwindles from there.
> 
> Love is apparently in finite supply was your thesis.


It's not my thesis, I'm just regurgitating work done in the field by an evolutionary biologist.

The article was about friendship. He did say it was perfectly reasonable to have two primary relationships in your life, but since monogamy is typically assumed, he called one your spouse and the other a best friend. I see no reason why best friend couldn't just as equally be second spouse.

Time restrictions will always limit the number of people with whom you can maintain a given level of intimacy, won't it?


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Q: Time restrictions will always limit the number of people with whom you can maintain a given level of intimacy, won't it?


A: True. Which is why I would think a "Prime" relationship would have to be there and a Secondary. But who knows. You could see each other once year and be thrilled on some level and feel like you had been friends for years.

Very complicated.

I feel like over life I have certainly been a student of Sex, but not as much Love.

It kind of struck me when i was back out dating again how every female profile says this:

_I am not just here for sex! If that's all you want, please move along!!! I'm looking for a relationship_

Funny how men resent women who don't value sex but yet they act just the same as women act when it comes to the corollary, the relationship. I vow to not be one of those guys.

Sex and relationships are pleasurable, rewarding, fun and enriching.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Um, it was brought to my attention in a private message that people in this thread may mistakenly think I equate Swinging and Polyamory as the same.

And having practiced NEITHER, I really can't speak with ANY authority, but in my head, they aren't the same. "Swinging" to me (and again I may be wrong here) is getting together for a party or club for recreational sex with married couples to fulfill fantasies and maybe have a laugh or two. Relationship pretty much ends with "the laugh or two". And no judgment there. Just my definition in my head.

Polyamory is about relationships first. Sexual or non-sexual. Sex optional, maybe even rare. Maybe it's about a social circle with varying degrees of attachment and affection, enlarging a sense of "family." Creating a tribe. Or a "pack"

Okay, just to clarify. . .this subject may have touched a sore point with Swinging. I would have posted anything Swinging in Sex forum. And I figure that's been talked about ad nauseum, ad infintinum here anyway.

And sorry if this was provocative; I am only attempting to be more of a student of love. I got the sex thing pretty down by now.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Scannerguard said:


> *You know, maybe 1 person can't ever possibly meet all of our needs, you know?*


But this right here.. isn't this REALLY what it boils down to... admitting such? 

I do feel , for the most part.. 1 person is capable of meeting all of our *NEEDS*...if we find someone similarly wired / compatible...

I like to list these as the 10 basic.. but we could make our own lists.. @badsanta started a thread asking others their top 5 here...whether we call it "*Emotional needs"* or *"Love languages"*.. it's what fulfills us at the end of the day...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/343193-badsantas-five-love-languages.html



Now "*WANTS"*... that may be a tall order.. 

My husband can't meet my every want.. I've certainly tried to get him to...even a little brow beating... but all my emotional and Sexual needs.. yes.. When my drive was sky high.. I was questioning that a bit.. but still he did... I just had to calm my jets a little...


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Um, it was brought to my attention in a private message that people in this thread may mistakenly think I equate Swinging and Polyamory as the same.
> 
> And having practiced NEITHER, I really can't speak with ANY authority, but in my head, they aren't the same. "Swinging" to me (and again I may be wrong here) is getting together for a party or club for recreational sex with married couples to fulfill fantasies and maybe have a laugh or two. Relationship pretty much ends with "the laugh or two". And no judgment there. Just my definition in my head.


It needn't be at a party or a club and does not always end with the laugh or two. Many people wind up being great friends. And it is not that uncommon for swinging to lead to a poly relationship.




> Polyamory is about relationships first. Sexual or non-sexual. Sex optional, maybe even rare.


It is not particularly rare.



> Maybe it's about a social circle with varying degrees of attachment and affection, enlarging a sense of "family." Creating a tribe. Or a "pack"


Again, there are zillion ways people do this. Not everyone is into communal living. Some people don't even hang out with their partners' other partners'


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Hey No One:

If you don't want to talk about it because you have been browbeaten, it's fine. I completely understand. 

I don't particularly want to do a Q and A session on it either. . .I am not trying to voyeuristic about it.

It sounds like it's worked for you but been challenging because of the social stigma.

And I wans't talking about being a Hippy commune. Extended family dispersed (maybe local but not co-habitation).

SA:

Interesting visual summary. Honestly, home management and recreational companion I could care less about. . .and this is why I probably score "off the charts" with independence on the dating profile personality tests for matching with me. Probably why i don't do well with clingers either. (Stage 1 or 2 is okay).

But I think it's fair and instructional.

And it's even instructive on why once in awhile my ex-gf needs me for "conversation" beyond "How are those Eagles doing? Glad Chip Kelly is gone."

And I agree that wants and needs can always get confused in life so if we only have 5 needs to attend to, we should ALL be able to do it, right?

Right? Right? Hmmm. Maybe not.

Maybe your husband will NEVER be a good conversationalist. Just never. . .and maybe it would be wrong for you to resent him for it. Because he is who he is. And there are literally 8 billion people here walking around who could give you conversation.

Intimate conversation.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Hey No One:
> 
> If you don't want to talk about it because you have been browbeaten, it's fine. I completely understand.


What are you asking me? If you asked me something, I missed it. I am replying to the things you are writing. Is there something specific you want?



> I don't particularly want to do a Q and A session on it either. . .I am not trying to voyeuristic about it.
> 
> It sounds like it's worked for you but been challenging because of the social stigma.


No problem with social stigma whatsoever. It worked for us for a number of years until I really came to understand my other partner. He is a total narcissist. Anyone can fall for a narcissist, even poly people! All of our good friends knew. They did not care at all.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Scannerguard said:


> Normal you would have a "main relationship" and a "side relationship."


Curious, what constitutes a "side relationship", where is the fine line that differentiates the side relationship from the main relationship (aside from sex).?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

@Scannerguard, if you use the quote feature, people will know when you are talking to them. Cheers.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> Curious, what constitutes a "side relationship", where is the fine line that differentiates the side relationship from the main relationship (aside from sex).?


Well, first of all, I was simply agreeing with the study Cletus posted - that perhaps love is finite. We aren't deities right? So maybe our capacity to love isn't infinite.

But that said, well, I would say the sex and proximity probably defines a "primary relationship" and maybe who contributes to your needs more. A secondary relationship may be "Deep conversation" like I give my ex-gf who craves it once in awhile.

It could be the amount of sex though. Or it could be recreational activity amount. I suppose needs, wants and boundaries and definitions vary.

I don't really know.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Well, first of all, I was simply agreeing with the study Cletus posted - that perhaps love is finite. We aren't deities right? So maybe our capacity to love isn't infinite.
> 
> But that said, well, I would say the sex and proximity probably defines a "primary relationship" and maybe who contributes to your needs more. A secondary relationship may be "Deep conversation" like I give my ex-gf who craves it once in awhile.
> 
> ...


A primary in responsible non-monogamous terms (umbrella term that includes poly) would be the one whose value is highest and whose commitment risk must be most seriously taken into account.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> if you use the quote feature, people will know when you are talking to them. Cheers


Sorry, got lazy on it. I don't think we are connecting on this subject though - the purpose was idea exchange.

Cheers to you too.


----------



## straightshooter (Dec 27, 2015)

*No I meant exactly what I said. This is not a poly friendly board except for a handful of people. Most of us don't talk much about it here because of the vitriol we get. There are other boards where people with actual experience living with polyamory for decades will know more about the topic than the people who supposedly know ALL about it from the handful of people they supposedly "know".*

Do not know why you would expect it to be a poly friendly board. no one should criticize you for the lifestyle if it works for you and your partner. The vitriol comes when you try to tell the rest of us that the MAJORITY of non monogamous relationships are just as happy as a lark and that their dissolution rate is not HIGHER than those of the monogamous relationship format, which we know is almost 50%.
Common sense would tell anyone that add in all the other factors in a non monogamous relationship that would make it more difficult and challenging to maintain and the truth should be pretty clear, and those challenges are even outlined in the books i mentioned.

So when you show disdain when someone says everyone they know that is non monogamous why are you surprised when people show the same reaction when you spout off that EVERYONE you know that is poly is wonderfully happy. i'd like to see some research you could provide on that one because i have read extensively when my wife suggested this on a polyamory forum and quite frankly my friend there is a lot of misery being spouted on there.

Now, we do not know if you social circle consists of all poly couples or what, but if they are all happy wonderful, but don't feed us the crap that anyone who does not find that in people they know is some kind of misinformed idiot.

you are sold on the non monogamous lifestyle. no problem. just don't talk to people like they are stupid and you will not get the vitriol.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Scannerguard said:


> Well, first of all, I was simply agreeing with the study Cletus posted - that perhaps love is finite. We aren't deities right? So maybe our capacity to love isn't infinite.
> 
> But that said, well, I would say the sex and proximity probably defines a "primary relationship" and maybe who contributes to your needs more. A secondary relationship may be "Deep conversation" like I give my ex-gf who craves it once in awhile.
> 
> ...


I would guess everyone has a different interpretation of a side or secondary relationship. For me, my W (naturally being the primary relationship) covers many of my needs. Outside of that I have hobbies, acquaintances/friends that can fill in the gaps. However, I don't need to have a deep connection with anyone except my wife (and I am not a clinger). 

Having deep conversations with an ex, and especially that they crave this, IDK, that just seems out of place, especially within the context of a monogamous relationship (IMO).


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Sorry, got lazy on it. I don't think we are connecting on this subject though - the purpose was idea exchange.
> 
> Cheers to you too.


You keep telling me that. I am perfectly open to sharing. I just want to know what you want shared?


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

I am not sure what the conflict is here but I am a science guy like Cletus.

If there is data (not common sense, which is a pseudonym for assumption and intuition) on failure rates for polyamory, then post it and I will review it without as much bias as I can.

Maybe the data is counterintuitive. 

But I ask you not attack anyone on my thread. NO need to involve the moderators; I prefer to handle this myself.

I certainly sense "issues" with Nobodyspecial but she has been polite even if I sense tension in her posts. I'm sure poly and mono people have varying degrees of bliss and misery.

And BTW< I think it's totally cool and bold that monogamous men and women step up, EVERY DAY and declare:

I ALONE CAN MEET THIS PERSON'S NEEDS!!! in a sacred forum called a church, temple or mosque.

It's so romantic to me in fact, that I cry at weddings.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

straightshooter said:


> *No I meant exactly what I said. This is not a poly friendly board except for a handful of people. Most of us don't talk much about it here because of the vitriol we get. There are other boards where people with actual experience living with polyamory for decades will know more about the topic than the people who supposedly know ALL about it from the handful of people they supposedly "know".*
> 
> Do not know why you would expect it to be a poly friendly board.


I did not see this. It was pure happenstance that I saw it this time since you did not quote me.

I don't expect it to be a poly friendly board. I was sharing that information in case YOU cared whether or not it is a poly friendly board. 



> no one should criticize you for the lifestyle if it works for you and your partner. The vitriol comes when you try to tell the rest of us that the MAJORITY of non monogamous relationships are just as happy as a lark and that their dissolution rate is not HIGHER than those of the monogamous relationship format, which we know is almost 50%.


I don't think I have ever done that. I am not sure where you see that. What I have said in the past that the expectation that the vast majority, or in one poster's care 100%, of poly relationships fail. It just isn't true. I don't know what percent do or don't. But I can tell you from looking around my world that it is not the vast majority. 



> Common sense would tell anyone that add in all the other factors in a non monogamous relationship that would make it more difficult and challenging to maintain and the truth should be pretty clear, and those challenges are even outlined in the books i mentioned.


Yup there are challenges and rewards to many facets of all relationships.




> So when you show disdain when someone says everyone they know that is non monogamous why are you surprised when people show the same reaction when you spout off that


When did I show disdain??



> EVERYONE you know that is poly is wonderfully happy. i'd like to see some research you could provide on that one because i have read extensively when my wife suggested this on a polyamory forum and quite frankly my friend there is a lot of misery being spouted on there.
> 
> Now, we do not know if you social circle consists of all poly couples or what, but if they are all happy wonderful, but don't feed us the crap that anyone who does not find that in people they know is some kind of misinformed idiot.
> 
> you are sold on the non monogamous lifestyle. no problem. just don't talk to people like they are stupid and you will not get the vitriol.


Um?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> I am not sure what the conflict is here but I am a science guy like Cletus.
> 
> If there is data (not common sense, which is a pseudonym for assumption and intuition) on failure rates for polyamory, then post it and I will review it without as much bias as I can.


Many, many stay in the closet.



> I certainly sense "issues" with Nobodyspecial but she has been polite even if I sense tension in her posts.


Nope just confusion on who is saying what since you are not using the quote feature. Happy as a pig in **** over here. I do think you are reading something into my tone that I am not intending to convey. 



> I'm sure poly and mono people have varying degrees of bliss and misery.
> 
> And BTW< I think it's totally cool and bold that monogamous men and women step up, EVERY DAY and declare:
> 
> ...


To each there own! I agree that monogamous people should BE THEMSELVES.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> Having deep conversations with an ex, and especially that they crave this, IDK, that just seems out of place, especially within the context of a monogamous relationship (IMO).


Well there's the crux. By our own forum "pseudo-authority" and student/teacher of marriage - SimplyAmorous. . .that is a basic need that he just can't meet.

Why? He's high school educated and not particularly cerebral. She NEEDS that. Attracted to academic intelligence (and a lot of women are, some women could care less).

He however is devoted and very attentive to her where I wasn't because of my independence. And he's a genius with home improvement stuff where I am intellectually stunted on that intelligence metric. And some women NEED that.

So. . .what's wrong with some intimate conversation? Well, we all know the answer:

Deadly Sin # 5: Envy.

And I don't deny it exists or it should be not addressed. . .but then again, I am not sure we should BOW to it.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Scannerguard said:


> So. . .what's wrong with some intimate conversation? Well, we all know the answer:
> 
> Deadly Sin # 5: Envy.
> 
> And I don't deny it exists or it should be not addressed. . .but then again, I am not sure we should BOW to it.


I wouldn't presume that it is all based on Envy. It could very well be. It could also be the dangers of maintaining OS relationships with someone outside of your SO. Not saying this is always the case, and this has been a hotly debated topic here on TAM.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> I wouldn't presume that it is all based on Envy. It could very well be. It could also be the dangers of maintaining OS relationships with someone outside of your SO. Not saying this is always the case, and this has been a hotly debated topic here on TAM.


Oh I think we both know it is (my intutition/common sense). What else could it possibly be except that Deadly Sin?

BTW, I believe the more I look at it, they are polyamorous in their own way. They wouldn't call it that. . .but he knows about me, knows when we've gone out to drink, knows our intimacy has become de-sexualized. Is he in a state of compersion about it? Maybe. Probably not. But he likes to hop around socially at clubs where she prefers more one on one and she lets him roam.

And maybe divorced people like all of us are more apt to fall into this because our families have been decimated by it. We need a broader sense of family that we've lost.

I know I certainly wasn't always like this. I was the monogamous physical and emotional type.

I guess. . .I grew up and have accepted certain realities.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

OK. Next step.

I declare this a religion. After that declaration, I'm applying for tax exempt status.

It's the American Way. In a few years, I'll be nominated for my genius of lowering taxes in a creative way.

:grin2:


----------



## TX-SC (Aug 25, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> A primary in responsible non-monogamous terms (umbrella term that includes poly) would be the one whose value is highest and whose commitment risk must be most seriously taken into account.


Very romantic!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

TX-SC said:


> Very romantic!


It is, actually! I agree!


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

LOL. I think that was sarcasm. If so, I would agree it sounds very clinical or legal or something. Hardly poetic.

I guess "husband" and "boyfriend" and "wife" and "girlfriend" probably sounds somewhat "better" (if you manage to not be offended by the concept).

Or maybe Spouse and Companion. . .I dunno.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> LOL. I think that was sarcasm. If so, I would agree it sounds very clinical or legal or something. Hardly poetic.


I know it was sarcasm. The fact is someone asked what constitutes primary and secondary. I answered the best I could in a generic way.



> I guess "husband" and "boyfriend" and "wife" and "girlfriend" probably sounds somewhat "better" (if you manage to not be offended by the concept).
> 
> Or maybe Spouse and Companion. . .I dunno.


Not everyone who is poly is married. What would you say, boyfriend 1 and boyfriend 2?


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> Not everyone who is poly is married. What would you say, boyfriend 1 and boyfriend 2?


Now you're being sarcastic I guess.

I told you my answer prior (an unconfident answer). But you want something for unmarried couples?

I dunno. . .

Boyfriend and companion? I have never been in a polyamorous relationship even if I am maybe wired this way.

Have I done or said something to offend you? Your posts seem to have an air of edgyness about them. It's a shame. . .on that thread with the man who has a gay wife now, just discovered. . .I wanted to refer him to this subject, if for only to understand perhaps how his wife may be wired by what she said to him. But I totally get it may be inappropriate for where HE is at right now - a traditional marriage/relationship perhaps on the precipice of ending.

Why don't you volunteer your experiences and opinions vs. a Q and A session? That was the original intent of this thread. I'm listening.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Now you're being sarcastic I guess.


You are an odd one. You keep inferring something from my tone that just is not there.



> I told you my answer prior (an unconfident answer). But you want something for unmarried couples?
> 
> I dunno. . .
> 
> Boyfriend and companion? I have never been in a polyamorous relationship even if I am maybe wired this way.


I don't think anyone would care what you called your partners except, perhaps, your partners themselves.



> Have I done or said something to offend you?


No. And I don't understand why you think that. 



> Your posts seem to have an air of edgyness about them.


Your post have a inferring things that are not there y ness about them.



> It's a shame. . .on that thread with the man who has a gay wife now, just discovered. . .I wanted to refer him to this subject, if for only to understand perhaps how his wife may be wired by what she said to him. But I totally get it may be inappropriate for where HE is at right now - a traditional marriage/relationship perhaps on the precipice of ending.
> 
> Why don't you volunteer your experiences and opinions vs. a Q and A session? That was the original intent of this thread. I'm listening.


Ok. I will ask one more time. What would you like to know about my experience? I am not a mind reader. You want me to write a book about 12 years or so of my life? Or do you have specific things that you are interested in?


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Fine, I have mistakenly inferred a tone that's not there. My apologies to mis-reading the tone of your posts.



> Ok. I will ask one more time. What would you like to know about my experience? I am not a mind reader. You want me to write a book about 12 years or so of my life? Or do you have specific things that you are interested in?



Here was my original post:



> Anyway, I must admit even I, being a pretty progressive guy, think it could be rather Utopian to think about, but I consider this forum pretty diverse so I thought I would come here and hear if anyone/couple have been in a polyamorous relationship. Or thought about.
> 
> I'll accept moral judgments too, lol.
> 
> Now, please, I am not actually talking about swinging, nor even necessarily SEX, but affection, companionship, love (and yes, maybe sex, lol). How did it work?


I realize it was a pretty open ended question but I didn't hear anything from you on the original question. Or maybe I missed it.

No, nothing specific by that open ended question, but I'll whittle it down for you, since "how did it work?" is vague and it seems to run against your grain to just post random musings. How about:

Did jealousy become an insurmountable challenge?
Were other partners able to find what they needed or did some end up feeling neglected and unfulfilled?
Any gender differences with the last question?
Were most secondary relationships sexual or asexual?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## LucasJackson (May 26, 2016)

uhtred said:


> I am not poly but I have close friends who are. It has worked out quite badly (1 divorce, one soon to be divorce) for both couples that I know. (Turns out that a lot of people really can't love 2 people at once, instead they transfer their love from one to the other).
> 
> I have no moral objections, and I think it is a lifestyle that works for *some* people. Unfortunately people do not seem very good at identifying if it will work for *them*.
> 
> I know that being poly would not work for me.


From what I've personally seen happen twice now is that at some point the spouse and the "lover" will have conflicting priorities and each need something. At that point the person has to pick one to prioritize over the other. Then the other knows where they stand and a problem is seeded and begins to grow. Especially if the person who was prioritized is not the spouse.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> From what I've personally seen happen twice now is that at some point the spouse and the "lover" will have conflicting priorities and each need something. At that point the person has to pick one to prioritize over the other. Then the other knows where they stand and a problem is seeded and begins to grow. Especially if the person who was prioritized is not the spouse.


Seems reasonable.

I think too maybe the problem is also "Who goes first?" kinda thing. I know with me, when I divorced (not the same thing but allow me some leeway), I wanted my ex-wife to be "taken care of" before me. . .I wanted HER needs met first with the assumption (sometimes wrongly) that if her needs were met, then she wouldn't be such a PITA to me. ANd if she was happy, it would spill over to the kids. Some of that proved true; some of it not. I was happy with her finding someone first in that capacity. (won't say I was in compersion/bliss, lol).

But someone HAS to go first and while it's easy to say you'd be in a state of "compersion" when the other person was getting a need met, you may be like, "Hey! What about me? I don't have anyone (yet)! Will I ever have anyone else or will all my needs be met?"

Insecurity as well as jealousy may be insurmountable together. But I'll wait to hear what NobodySpecial has to say.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Fine, I have mistakenly inferred a tone that's not there. My apologies to mis-reading the tone of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did not see it. So the question is how did it work. Well at first, it worked great. It was a quad of 2 couples. So we each had a primary and we women had 2 "secondaries", if you want to put it like that. He was very different from DH and she was very different from me in ways that were complimentary to the other. We had occasional issues of jealousy, especially my ex. that probably should have been a red flag in hindsight. He is very possessive. 



> No, nothing specific by that open ended question, but I'll whittle it down for you, since "how did it work?" is vague and it seems to run against your grain to just post random musings. How about:
> 
> Did jealousy become an insurmountable challenge?


Not insurmountable. We used to joke that we ought to do a reality tv show, though. We just talked through it. We had all read up on the concepts and stuff, so we had other people's experiences to learn from. 



> Were other partners able to find what they needed or did some end up feeling neglected and unfulfilled?
> Any gender differences with the last question?
> Were most secondary relationships sexual or asexual?
> 
> Thank you in advance.


No, no one felt neglected on balance. There were individual instances. My ex's wife tends to be a giver and her husband a BIG taker, so his wants tended to shadow hers out. But we talked it through. 

All of the relationships were sexual. That is actually how it started. We all fell in love later.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Seems reasonable.
> 
> I think too maybe the problem is also "Who goes first?" kinda thing. I know with me, when I divorced (not the same thing but allow me some leeway), I wanted my ex-wife to be "taken care of" before me. . .I wanted HER needs met first with the assumption (sometimes wrongly) that if her needs were met, then she wouldn't be such a PITA to me. ANd if she was happy, it would spill over to the kids. Some of that proved true; some of it not. I was happy with her finding someone first in that capacity. (won't say I was in compersion/bliss, lol).
> 
> ...


What do you mean by "go first"? We each had care taking roles. She and I were Moms to our kids while co-joining many activities. BF was the planner. DH was the cook. We were all big into laughter. When it came to weekends, we tended to gravitate to our non-spouses since we had been with our spouses all week. We did not join households, though that was on the table at one point. If anyone "went first" in terms of getting their way, it was BF because he was the loudest and the least tolerant of getting his way. Early on, that was easy to accommodate. It later because the reason for the break up as it finally became evident that he lacked any kind of empathy and his needs were all he understood.

But needs were never lined up like a checklist, a practice that I think you see on this board all the time and is not a great idea.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> What do you mean by "go first"? We each had care taking roles.


Oh I see. . .it all sort of happened at once. . .I figured relationships were forged one by one.

So, you all sort of decided to be "family"? (maybe wrong word - maybe commune, not sure) But it started out sexual, right?

But my follow-up question would be. . .how would you even know, if you sort of picked let's say 6-8 people randomly that this one would pair well with that one and what not? Seems like the chaos factor would increase exponentially with each person.

Kinda like drug interactions. 1 is fine, maybe 2, that 3rd one gives 9 different interactions, 4th - 16 and so on.

Welcome to American Healthcare or a polyamorous relationship, right? The more drugs the merrier? Better living through chemistry and polyamory?

Hey, I am being slightly sarcastic myself with the last question, but it's really only to challenge, not judge. I am fascinated.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Scannerguard said:


> Oh I see. . .it all sort of happened at once. . .I figured relationships were forged one by one.


Oh, I see what you mean. Yah many people do it that way. We did not.



> So, you all sort of decided to be "family"? (maybe wrong word - maybe commune, not sure) But it started out sexual, right?


Not really. We did talk about moving into a duplex at one point. But we were definitely 2 separate families.


> But my follow-up question would be. . .how would you even know, if you sort of picked let's say 6-8 people randomly that this one would pair well with that one and what not? Seems like the chaos factor would increase exponentially with each person.


I am not sure why you would do that?


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Something I have always wondered about... is it called polyamory when there is no sexual involvement/attraction?

For instance, what if one person just really likes to take care of others, help them out, etc. Is that polyamory? What if you form deep connections with people who you want to have in your life long term, but you don't feel any romantic feelings for them? What if you aren't jealous when someone flirts when your spouse, nor when your spouse form strong affectionate emotional connections to others? The only time I have ever seen the need to "mate guard" is when someone is making my wife uncomfortable and they won't take the hint. Is that polyamory?

Because if it is, then I am definitely polyamorous. I can certainly form strong emotional bonds with others, and want them in my life forever. It doesn't bother me to live with other people either, the process of working relationship dynamics out actually energizes me. The more happy the people closest to me are, the more I want to show EVERYONE love and affection. 

The only issue with that is that I am demisexual. Meaning that I have a very hard time feeling any sexual desire without a strong emotional bond. Since my wife and I are sexually monogamous, it's something I have just learned to accept and let go of. If I get turned on by one person, then I get turned on by the rest of them. My wife is the same way, hence why we have sex so damn often. We just can't keep our hands off each other. It works well for us. We basically just walk around laughing and loving everyone around us and pretty much stay turned on all the time. We end up craving each other constantly. 

I know I couldn't get into swinging because I would get nothing out of it. My wife has said the same thing. Polyamory? Maybe. But we are quite happy the way things are now. If something changes along the lines, we will talk about it, I'm sure. 

The way I see it, I don't need my wife for me to be happy. I don't need her to be happy in order to be happy myself. I LOVE seeing her happy. But the truth is, I love seeing anyone happy. 

I guess I'm an odd one. There isn't a single person on the planet that I do not have a desire to love. But, I'm also one of the biggest proponents on TAM of effective boundaries, with clear and concise consequences. I have an extremely high sex drive, but the thought of casual sex does nothing for me. I do not like conflict, but I am quick to confront someone if I have an issue with them.

Yep. Odd one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RideofmyLife (Dec 18, 2015)

My husband and I tried it. Didn't work for us. Hubby ended up in a mental hospital. 
Most people like the idea of it, but in practice it just doesn't work. I'd avoid.


----------



## brooklynAnn (Jun 29, 2015)

@As'laDain, what you are describing is not polyamorous. You sound like you like living with people who you really like and enjoy their energy. It not sexual. 

Poly is when you are having sex with those people in your little community. So, it's mostly a sexually relationship that you can get some of the benefits of what you like but sex too. It's can be monogamous amount themselves. They are getting their sexual needs met by those in their groups.

Seem like too much work to keep everyone happy and satisfied. I am tired already.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

brooklynAnn said:


> @As'laDain, what you are describing is not polyamorous. You sound like you like living with people who you really like and enjoy their energy. It not sexual.
> 
> Poly is when you are having sex with those people in your little community. So, it's mostly a sexually relationship that you can get some of the benefits of what you like but sex too. It's can be monogamous amount themselves. They are getting their sexual needs met by those in their groups.
> 
> Seem like too much work to keep everyone happy and satisfied. I am tired already.


I cannot speak to @As'laDain's question since I have no experience with it. I have no knowledge of love without sex being called polyamory. But I can tell you that sex alone was not what we were doing. That was what we did when we were swinging. We loved each other very much at the time. I am not sure what "it's can't be monogamous amount themselves" means, exactly. But I think it means folks were hornier than their spouse was doing for them. And I can tell you that that was not truly it at all. DH and I were having the best sex of our lives before we began that little adventure. And I can say that I genuinely loved my ex at that time.


----------



## brooklynAnn (Jun 29, 2015)

I meant that they only have sex within their little group. That is the definite set of people. Because most of them have rules that governs their relationship. I am sure their relationship is not based on sex only. Just like most relationships.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

brooklynAnn said:


> I meant that they only have sex within their little group. That is the definite set of people. Because most of them have rules that governs their relationship. I am sure their relationship is not based on sex only. Just like most relationships.


Yah. I agree with that.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Well, I only ask because I have heard poly people talk about non sexual relationships falling under the umbrella term of polyamory. They may spend just as much time with their non-sexual partners as they do with their sexual ones, because they are meeting different needs. 

If that falls under polyamory, then I fit the bill. But, then again, so do a lot of people. Regular friends fall under that category, if you are willing to put a label on it.

I know I am a bit different in that most people wouldn't feel comfortable living in one house with multiple families, but I enjoy it. Even when everyone is not getting along. 

If someone is feeling starved for affection, I enjoy working out how to find out how to fill that need, which usually entails tremendous amounts of talking, and then planning, and then action, and then more talking to see if what we are doing is working. It has all the complexities of a close relationship. Sometimes someone just wants to hang out with my wife. Sometimes it's me. Sometimes it's a group. 

Until my wife and I got into kink, we had never heard of polyamory. Some people have said we are a non sexual poly couple because of how deeply entangled we get wrapped up in others. We often even share parenting duties with those closest to us. We just don't have sex with anyone else. 

It's an interesting thing to think about.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

As'laDain said:


> Well, I only ask because I have heard poly people talk about non sexual relationships falling under the umbrella term of polyamory. They may spend just as much time with their non-sexual partners as they do with their sexual ones, because they are meeting different needs.
> 
> If that falls under polyamory, then I fit the bill. But, then again, so do a lot of people. Regular friends fall under that category, if you are willing to put a label on it.
> 
> ...


Whatever it is called, if it works for you, then rock it!


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I cannot speak to @As'laDain's question since I have no experience with it. I have no knowledge of love without sex being called polyamory. But I can tell you that sex alone was not what we were doing. That was what we did when we were swinging. We loved each other very much at the time. I am not sure what "it's can't be monogamous amount themselves" means, exactly. But I think it means folks were hornier than their spouse was doing for them. And I can tell you that that was not truly it at all. DH and I were having the best sex of our lives before we began that little adventure. And I can say that I genuinely loved my ex at that time.


Pardon me if this is slightly off topic, but you defended the swinging lifestyle, correct? You say you and your DH were into that lifestyle but you now refer to him as your ex? I looked through one of your threads and you mentioned that your husband chatted with a woman who was once a partner. This woman had a marriage that was a wreck so you two lost touch with her. I am curious if her marital problems were due to the swinging lifestyle and if your divorce from your ex was also due to swinging? You mentioned that your husband received a "let's f***" text from this woman and he responded with "Let's do it." 

You say you genuinely loved him at the time you were into swinging yet he still cheated? Do I have that correct? Is this the same husband?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

becareful2 said:


> Pardon me if this is slightly off topic, but you defended the swinging lifestyle, correct? You say you and your DH were into that lifestyle but you now refer to him as your ex?


No. We met a couple through swinging that developed into a poly arrangement. That man is the man I refer to as my ex. My DH and I are still very alive and kicking.



> I looked through one of your threads and you mentioned that your husband chatted with a woman who was once a partner.


The woman in the aforementioned poly quad.



> This woman had a marriage that was a wreck so you two lost touch with her. I am curious if her marital problems were due to the swinging lifestyle and if your divorce from your ex was also due to swinging? You mentioned that your husband received a "let's f***" text from this woman and he responded with "Let's do it."
> 
> You say you genuinely loved him at the time you were into swinging yet he still cheated? Do I have that correct? Is this the same husband?


In retrospect, he did not cheat. I gave him full permission for what he did. I chose not to recognize that because I was butt sore. *I* think her marriage is a train wreck because *I* think her husband (my ex) is a complete narcissist. She does not share that view but is not entirely happy either. 

But DH and I have recovered and are doing well. Thanks!


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> In retrospect, he did not cheat. I gave him full permission for what he did. I chose not to recognize that because I was butt sore. *I* think her marriage is a train wreck because *I* think her husband (my ex) is a complete narcissist. She does not share that view but is not entirely happy either.
> 
> But DH and I have recovered and are doing well. Thanks!



I think I understand a little better now. You divorced your ex, and he married this woman. They are now divorced. Your current husband and this woman reconnected during that "taking it underground" situation?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

becareful2 said:


> I think I understand a little better now. You divorced your ex, and he married this woman. They are now divorced. Your current husband and this woman reconnected during that "taking it underground" situation?


No. I have never been divorced. My ex is the person formerly referred to as my BF, the husband of the woman my husband formerly called GF. My husband and I are still married. Still happy. I have never been remarried. The underground situation was a result of her husband, my ex, being very possessive. If he was not getting something (me), she could not have any either. Not healthy and not something I am a fan of. Thankfully over.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> No. I have never been divorced. My ex is the person formerly referred to as my BF, the husband of the woman my husband formerly called GF. My husband and I are still married. Still happy. I have never been remarried. The underground situation was a result of her husband, my ex, being very possessive. If he was not getting something (me), she could not have any either. Not healthy and not something I am a fan of. Thankfully over.


Ah, I see. Your exBF and your husband's exGF got married and divorced. Small world.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

becareful2 said:


> Ah, I see. Your exBF and your husband's exGF got married and divorced. Small world.


No. They were married to each other and we were married to each other when we met. We remain married. They remain married.


----------



## becareful2 (Jul 8, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> No. They were married to each other and we were married to each other when we met. We remain married. They remain married.


Then who divorced in this thread? 



> Former partner we lost touch with since her own marriage was a wreck. Now divorced. Recently reconnected.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

becareful2 said:


> Then who divorced in this thread?


OMG someone from 12 years ago. Had nothing to do with us.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

Scannerguard said:


> Polyamorous that is, not polysexual, lol.


yes


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

straightshooter said:


> You can find out a lot more about poly and what is called ethical non monogamy by reading two books
> 
> "Opening Up"
> "More Than Two"
> ...


There's a good chance that they'll get good information from this site, because we tend not to have straight out "h8rs" but a great range of experience and biases, which throws great insight from different angles. Reading Poly material from poly sources can be a bit "pro-poly". Also there is a big problem with "dead leaves" (books) because you can't dig deeper into aspects of personalities and question more deeply - which you can in a live forum.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

sokillme said:


> It is no longer just you and your SO's relationship, now it's -
> 
> you and your SO
> you the other Woman,
> ...


Except its not "the other woman" (or man) it's YOUR wo/man and YOUR wo/man.

"Compersion" is better defined as the opposite to "schadenfreude"
as in compersion you are experiencing person happiness at other people's happiness. It doesn't require a relationship (sexual or otherwise) but having compersion in a relationship is even better.
For those who find such a thing hard to relate to why it is important, consider the joy you get when a young child wins a race or their sports team wins. Even if you didn't run the race or barrack for their team, there is a contagious glow of happiness about them. That glow you feel in connection to that is compersion. It also relates in sportsmanship when your opponent pulls off a particularly awesome move against you - sure you'll lose a point or a match, but there's shared glee at such an awesome move.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

spotthedeaddog said:


> Except its not "the other woman" (or man) it's YOUR wo/man and YOUR wo/man.
> 
> "Compersion" is better defined as the opposite to "schadenfreude"
> as in compersion you are experiencing person happiness at other people's happiness. It doesn't require a relationship (sexual or otherwise) but having compersion in a relationship is even better.
> For those who find such a thing hard to relate to why it is important, consider the joy you get when a young child wins a race or their sports team wins. Even if you didn't run the race or barrack for their team, there is a contagious glow of happiness about them. That glow you feel in connection to that is compersion. It also relates in sportsmanship when your opponent pulls off a particularly awesome move against you - sure you'll lose a point or a match, but there's shared glee at such an awesome move.


Interesting. I would say that I experience compersion quite often. Like, all day, during most of the day.

It's a far cry from what I used to feel all the time. Seven years ago, I used to feel mostly envy for people who express joy and happiness.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

Scannerguard said:


> Polyamory is about relationships first. Sexual or non-sexual. Sex optional, maybe even rare. Maybe it's about a social circle with varying degrees of attachment and affection, enlarging a sense of "family." Creating a tribe. Or a "pack"


Group marriages are another step away. 
While technically they are part of "polyamory" (many loves) there is a whole extra level of organisation.
I'm polyamorous, but have a couple of friends who who part of famous group marriages in the US, and one who narrow missed out on being caught up in an infamous one in London.

On notable thing is that the true group marriage takes on a appears to be to outsiders as a cult-like inner tribe. You know that in a monogamous marriage you tend to lose track of most of your friends just because of new priorities - the same happens with the group marriages. also group marriages need to have agreed principles about who sleeps with who and when, what terms people can divorce, and who gets to say on who marries in. Also group marriages have to be VERY careful against "cult-leader" personalities that tend to be attracted to the mass trust that exists, which is doubly hard as often a charismatic individual tends to be required to rally around for such energy.
But I get the feeling you're not talking the group marriage.

A scenario where two people are very close and they personally have individual different relationships (H or N style), you have to ask yourself what is the nature of the relationship of the pair. Many people with different partners spend many hours every day working on projects (some do this for money, others call theirs "volunteering"). Seldom is that connect considered polyamorous. 
A person might be in a classroom or dojo and have great love and respect for their teacher, and the teacher for their students. Again this is not considered polyamorous.
Two guys might regularly go fishing or hunting; or their wives go shopping and coffee together, (or vice versa in the modern age) is that considered polyamorous - because they are share emotional relaxation and support.

A major factor that makes it _polyamory_ in such a case is when the primary relationships of each, know and adjust for the relationship, IN FULL KNOWLEDGE, of intimate connection (not necessary sexual).
It can be of great benefit, built huge skill-pools and resources, but... It has it's challenges, as the lines must be observed - just how "brokeback mountain" are you going to go with your movie/fishing/gin-night friend?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

As'laDain said:


> Well, I only ask because I have heard poly people talk about non sexual relationships falling under the umbrella term of polyamory. They may spend just as much time with their non-sexual partners as they do with their sexual ones, because they are meeting different needs.
> 
> If that falls under polyamory, then I fit the bill. But, then again, so do a lot of people. Regular friends fall under that category, if you are willing to put a label on it.


The differences are slight... just as "night" and "day" are slight changes in time.

The more correct term for regular sexual partners who are more than just the two, but who don't go outside their agreed group is "polyfidelitious"
https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sour...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=polyfidelitous definition
the technical term doesn't strictly require polyarmory, as it also describes certain "love triangles" and closed partner swapping (but sometimes a cigar isn't just a cigar  )
Common usage of polyfidelitious expects the group to also be polyamorous so if you find it in conversation, its not guaranteed but very likely. Likewise because of the importance placed of sex in a relationship and fidelity about sex in a relationship, most people will expect people who are discussing polyamory to imply polyfidelity of some level.
A common form of polyfidelity that steps outside the polyarmory somewhat is bisexual partners engaged in a "monogamous marriage" but whom with the knowledge of their partner get on the "down low" with a member of the same sex to ease those urges.

As for friends, you can also have friends while you're dating. Even good friends. But there's another level to the person that you want to enter into a special relationship with. Frequently in the shallow surface world out there many people see that step as "sex" or "finance(support)", which is indeed a sad state of affairs which explain much about the messed up world we live in.
With the polyarmorous relationship you step off that path and follow the white rabbit (the lewis carol one, not the lsd one) down the rabbit hole.
As in normal two partner relationships, you're professing to your heart and to your partner(s) that you intend to put their needs beyond those of the outside world, and to a certain degree above your own. That you will honor their commitments, and seek to help them improve in the path of their life.
Friends you help - partners you walk life with.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

spotthedeaddog said:


> The differences are slight... just as "night" and "day" are slight changes in time.
> 
> The more correct term for regular sexual partners who are more than just the two, but who don't go outside their agreed group is "polyfidelitious"
> https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sour...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=polyfidelitous definition
> ...


ok. well, my wife and i have made major life decisions in order to support those who we love. i would rather see the ones i love achieve their goals then worry about my own. my own goals are to provide for my loved ones and teach them how to love life, and most importantly, love themselves. 

my wife and i are more than happy to endure another ten years of constant deployments if thats what gives us the resources to see our loved ones succeed. 

we believe in them, so we do it. we have found nothing more exciting than empowering people. especially people we love.


----------

