But typically people don’t sit around snuggling friends they aren’t sleeping with or trying to sleep with.
Perhaps not. But I am having to draw on an atypical hypothetical to try and find our exact point of disagreement. I hope you don’t mind?
Okay, so, refined hypothetical: The person you are dating is also, in their personal opinion, ‘dating’ an asexual man. This man has no interest in making out with them, let alone sex, but does enjoy romance, and cuddling up with them in order to share the feeling of emotional closeness.
Your partner considers this relationship equally important to the relationship between the two of you, and makes sure to schedule sufficient time to spend with each of you. They celebrate their anniversary with this other partner, and your anniversary with you, as well as wishing to spend time with this partner on valentines day.
They recently met this other partner’s family, going to his brothers wedding with him; as his ‘date’.
I am having to draw on an atypical hypothetical to try and find our exact point of disagreement. I hope you don’t mind?
Not at all.
Your partner considers this relationship equally important to the relationship between the two of you [...] Does this bother you?
Yes. No one should be as important to my partner as I am.
If you modify your scenario to involve an asexual male who likes to cuddle (or a gay male or a straight female, easier for me to imagine than a purely asexual male, although I know those folks do exist) and that that person is important to my partner but not as important as I am, then I would not have a problem with their cuddling at all, or being emotionally close.
That is very interesting, thank you for taking my hypotheticals seriously, and answering honestly.
What you are asking your partner to give up is not the “swinging lifestyle” as you thought: you’re also asking your partner to give up having anyone they consider as important as they consider you.
I hope you can now understand why people make such a big distinction between swinging (where they have other sexual partners, who aren’t as important as their romantic partner) and polyamory (where they have multiple romantic partners, who may not be sexual, but can be equally important to each other)
I hope you can now understand why people make such a big distinction [...]
I knew about the distinction before, I just didn’t realize how much polyamorous people disliked being associated with swingers, and phrased poorly as a result.
There still seems to be more overlap (more poly folks who permit one-night stands in swinger-ish manner than monogamous folks who permit it). Do you find this not to be the case? Most poly partnerships keep their sexuality limited to the 3 or 4 or 6 of them, and would look down on a partner having sex with people they didn’t intend to add to the long-term group?
polyamory (where they have multiple romantic partners, who may not be sexual
How common is it in your experience for the polyamorous to have non-sexual romantic partners?
There still seems to be more overlap (more poly folks who permit one-night stands in swinger-ish manner than monogamous folks who permit it). Do you find this not to be the case?
Hmmm, I’m not entirely sure. In my social circle far more monoamorous people #PRACTICE# one night stands (in a swingerish manner) than polyamorous people. The polyamorous people may #allow# it; but when you can date whoever you want, and aren’t forced to limit it to a one-night stand, why would you limit it?
My social circle is, however, distinctly atypical, and so cannot really be construed as evidence of much.
Most poly partnerships keep their sexuality limited to the 3 or 4 or 6 of them, and would look down on a partner having sex with people they didn’t intend to add to the long-term group?
Groups suggest a closed loop, which is uncommon. However many poly people I know are uninterested in having sex with anyone who they don’t feel a romantic bond with, simply because they have far more satisfying alternatives available.
How common is it in your experience for the polyamorous to have non-sexual romantic partners?
Maybe 10%, or so. Not massively common, but certainly not unheard of. Far more would be open to non-sexual romance, just haven’t had one.
knew about the distinction before, I just didn’t realize how much polyamorous people disliked being associated with swingers, and phrased poorly as a result.
The association with swingers is a problem due to the fact it leads to people, such as yourself, failing to recognise the differences, and making factually incorrect statements.
I’ll answer your questions shortly in a seperate post; but I have a point I feel I may have failed to make, so I’ll make it here:
The post I first replied to contained this line that I quoted:
Replaceable, pretty easily, considering how doable it is to not live like a swinger (the other side of poly, emotional & intellectual connection = good friends, no line-crossing necessary).
You have since revealed that there is a level of emotional and intellectual connection that you consider line crossing. This is an important change in your position, so I think it is important that you put those two beliefs together, and realise that one of them must be wrong.
Work out which one is wrong, and remove it; that is the purpose of this whole site :-)
It’s not a change; there was no explicit comparison between connection to others and connection to me in that statement, so I didn’t address it there.
So, to clarify: My partner can have any level of emotional/intellectual connection with friends and family, as long as it remains non-sexual and I remain most important / without equal.
In the previous post your only restriction was that they not have sex with others. You have now stated that you have two restrictions*: that is a contradiction of your previous position.
*and the restriction requiring that they give up anyone that is of equal importance to you is a massive one, far larger, to me and many polyamorous people, than the sexual restriction.
the restriction requiring that they give up anyone that is of equal important to you is a massive one
That my partner would have anyone equally important to me in the first place is highly unlikely, because we are not poly. How would such a high importance relationship form against a monoamorous backdrop? So it’s really not a big deal in practice.
But you were talking about the hypothetical situation in which you were being courted by a polyamorous person, saying that you’d be upset about their unwillingness to give up their “swinging lifestyle”*, and therefore wouldn’t date them.
*(a description that was extremely inaccurate)
Had you forgotten that that was the root of this conversation?
But you were talking about the hypothetical situation in which you were being courted by a polyamorous person
No, I wasn’t. I think I see where that miscommunication happened.
I mentioned that it is pretty easy not to have multiple partners (which I wrongly lumped, off-handedly, under the non-term-of-art “swinging”), and so that someone being unwilling to not pursue multiple partners would make me feel replaceable.
I think you read my statement as “the person already has multiple partners, and I demand they give them up to date me.” I didn’t mean it that way. If someone already has a partner (or partners) that is (are) more important than me, I wouldn’t be pursuing them or demanding anything of them in the first place.
Aside: I mentioned earlier that I shouldn’t have used the term “swing*”, but you still seem hung up on it. Can we move past that? Apologies, again; I hadn’t realized it would be so offensive to the poly crowd.
The term itself is not the problem. The problem was that your original post claimed that the only bit you objected to was the sexual aspect. Clearly, this is not the case, but, for reasons I am uncertain of, you still seem to be standing by your original statement as an accurate one.
I am trying to make it clear to you that what you are asking them to give up is NOT just about the sex. What you are asking them to give up is the option to LOVE other people. Which is very different from just asking them to give up the option to FUCK other people.
for reasons I am uncertain of, you still seem to be standing by your original statement as an accurate one
No one asked me for a list of all conditions I place on relationships. So I stated one and not others. Accurate is different from complete. You are noticing incompleteness and accusing it of inaccuracy.
I was not surprised / learned nothing new about my preferences when I noted that I need to be the most important person to my partner.
[...] is NOT just about the sex.
Agreed. It’s also about relative levels of significance. Not sure why you think that is not clear. I hope it is now clear that it is.
What you are asking them to give up is the option to LOVE other people.
As long as they don’t love them as much as they love me, and as long as that love doesn’t become sexual/romantic, then no, I am not.
My partner can love her family and friends, as can I. But no matter how much she loves those friends, I would be quite surprised and hurt if she told me one of them were as important to her as I am.
No one asked me for a list of all conditions I place on relationships. So I stated one and not others. Accurate is different from complete. You are noticing incompleteness and accusing it of inaccuracy.
Incompleteness claimed as completeness is inaccuracy. Your statement referred to poly as having precisely two sides, the sexual side (which you had a problem with) and everything else (which you didn’t).
It turns out you DO have a problem with the everything else side.
That is incompleteness posing as completeness, which is inaccuracy.
My partner can love her family and friends, as can I. But no matter how much she loves those friends, I would be quite surprised and hurt if she told me one of them were as important to her as I am.
Why would you be hurt by this?: this is honest curiosity on my part, because I don’t understand that sort of thinking. I can’t see any harm to you, so I find myself confused.
Incompleteness claimed as completeness is inaccuracy.
Good thing I didn’t claim, in my original statement, to be stating anything precise about polyamory or about my own list of preferences. Else I’d be in trouble.
Why would you be hurt by this? [...] I can’t see any harm to you
It is the harm of not being Most Important. This is something I value—it makes me happy to be the center of my partner’s world, and her mine. I consider removal of things I value to be harms.
jmed, you seem to consider admitting previous inaccuracy a bad thing. This whole site is based around the idea that coming in, one will be wrong, and leaving one will be less wrong. Why is it so hard for you to accept that what you wrote was wrong?
It is the harm of not being Most Important. This is something I value—it makes me happy to be the center of my partner’s world, and her mine. I consider removal of things I value to be harms.
Would you feel similarly harmed if your partner revealed that she considered all of her friends and family put together (as a collective, but not individually) to be more important than you as an individual?
jmed, you seem to consider admitting previous inaccuracy a bad thing.
Considering I already, in the comments of this one LW post, apologized to various folks for being unclear and using terms inaccurately (“swinger”), you seem to be mistaken.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that what you wrote was wrong?
It isn’t hard, when I actually agree that what I write is wrong, which certainly happens enough.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that your interpretation can be wrong? Especially given all the oft-repeated basic LW knowledge on miscommunication and people-talking-past-one-another?
Would you feel similarly harmed if your partner revealed that she considered all of her friends and family put together (as a collective, but not individually) to be more important than you as an individual?
Hmm. I feel like I would not be as hurt by that, because social network is important, but I would be surprised by it. I think my partner would abandon them to stay with me if such a choice were forced (let’s say by some sort of relocation protection program whereby she is safe with me or without me, but once the choice is made, no contact with me or them can ever be made again).
Why is it so hard for you to accept that your interpretation can be wrong? Especially given all the oft-repeated basic LW knowledge on miscommunication and people-talking-past-one-another?
Because I am looking at what you wrote, not what you think you wrote.
You wrote that you’d want a person to give up the sexual side of poly, but not the other side. This says that there are two parts to poly in your mind, and only the sexual part is a problem. This isn’t, in fact, true, the non-sexual side is also a problem to you; as the non-sexual part would still compromise your position of importance.
However I suppose this has dragged on long enough, and there is unlikely to be any value extracted from this part of the conversation, so you may feel free to state your piece, and I will read it, but probably not respond unless you request me to.
Hmm. I feel like I would not be as hurt by that, because social network is important, but I would be surprised by it. I think my partner would abandon them to stay with me if such a choice were forced (let’s say by some sort of relocation protection program whereby she is safe with me or without me, but once the choice is made, no contact with me or them can ever be made again).
Okay, thank you for the information. It’s a valuable insight into how other people differ from me. You are certainly the sort of person who I would call naturally monoamorous, and incapable of happy polyamory. By the sounds of it you and your partner are both happy with this, so :-D.
EDIT: I suppose, to avoid being hypocritical, I should apologise for my incorrect belief that you were unwilling to accept being incorrect :p
Perhaps not. But I am having to draw on an atypical hypothetical to try and find our exact point of disagreement. I hope you don’t mind?
Okay, so, refined hypothetical: The person you are dating is also, in their personal opinion, ‘dating’ an asexual man. This man has no interest in making out with them, let alone sex, but does enjoy romance, and cuddling up with them in order to share the feeling of emotional closeness.
Your partner considers this relationship equally important to the relationship between the two of you, and makes sure to schedule sufficient time to spend with each of you. They celebrate their anniversary with this other partner, and your anniversary with you, as well as wishing to spend time with this partner on valentines day. They recently met this other partner’s family, going to his brothers wedding with him; as his ‘date’.
Does this bother you?
Not at all.
Yes. No one should be as important to my partner as I am.
If you modify your scenario to involve an asexual male who likes to cuddle (or a gay male or a straight female, easier for me to imagine than a purely asexual male, although I know those folks do exist) and that that person is important to my partner but not as important as I am, then I would not have a problem with their cuddling at all, or being emotionally close.
That is very interesting, thank you for taking my hypotheticals seriously, and answering honestly.
What you are asking your partner to give up is not the “swinging lifestyle” as you thought: you’re also asking your partner to give up having anyone they consider as important as they consider you.
I hope you can now understand why people make such a big distinction between swinging (where they have other sexual partners, who aren’t as important as their romantic partner) and polyamory (where they have multiple romantic partners, who may not be sexual, but can be equally important to each other)
I knew about the distinction before, I just didn’t realize how much polyamorous people disliked being associated with swingers, and phrased poorly as a result.
There still seems to be more overlap (more poly folks who permit one-night stands in swinger-ish manner than monogamous folks who permit it). Do you find this not to be the case? Most poly partnerships keep their sexuality limited to the 3 or 4 or 6 of them, and would look down on a partner having sex with people they didn’t intend to add to the long-term group?
How common is it in your experience for the polyamorous to have non-sexual romantic partners?
Hmmm, I’m not entirely sure. In my social circle far more monoamorous people #PRACTICE# one night stands (in a swingerish manner) than polyamorous people. The polyamorous people may #allow# it; but when you can date whoever you want, and aren’t forced to limit it to a one-night stand, why would you limit it?
My social circle is, however, distinctly atypical, and so cannot really be construed as evidence of much.
Groups suggest a closed loop, which is uncommon. However many poly people I know are uninterested in having sex with anyone who they don’t feel a romantic bond with, simply because they have far more satisfying alternatives available.
Maybe 10%, or so. Not massively common, but certainly not unheard of. Far more would be open to non-sexual romance, just haven’t had one.
The association with swingers is a problem due to the fact it leads to people, such as yourself, failing to recognise the differences, and making factually incorrect statements.
I’ll answer your questions shortly in a seperate post; but I have a point I feel I may have failed to make, so I’ll make it here:
The post I first replied to contained this line that I quoted:
You have since revealed that there is a level of emotional and intellectual connection that you consider line crossing. This is an important change in your position, so I think it is important that you put those two beliefs together, and realise that one of them must be wrong.
Work out which one is wrong, and remove it; that is the purpose of this whole site :-)
It’s not a change; there was no explicit comparison between connection to others and connection to me in that statement, so I didn’t address it there.
So, to clarify: My partner can have any level of emotional/intellectual connection with friends and family, as long as it remains non-sexual and I remain most important / without equal.
In the previous post your only restriction was that they not have sex with others. You have now stated that you have two restrictions*: that is a contradiction of your previous position.
*and the restriction requiring that they give up anyone that is of equal importance to you is a massive one, far larger, to me and many polyamorous people, than the sexual restriction.
That my partner would have anyone equally important to me in the first place is highly unlikely, because we are not poly. How would such a high importance relationship form against a monoamorous backdrop? So it’s really not a big deal in practice.
But you were talking about the hypothetical situation in which you were being courted by a polyamorous person, saying that you’d be upset about their unwillingness to give up their “swinging lifestyle”*, and therefore wouldn’t date them.
*(a description that was extremely inaccurate)
Had you forgotten that that was the root of this conversation?
No, I wasn’t. I think I see where that miscommunication happened.
I mentioned that it is pretty easy not to have multiple partners (which I wrongly lumped, off-handedly, under the non-term-of-art “swinging”), and so that someone being unwilling to not pursue multiple partners would make me feel replaceable.
I think you read my statement as “the person already has multiple partners, and I demand they give them up to date me.” I didn’t mean it that way. If someone already has a partner (or partners) that is (are) more important than me, I wouldn’t be pursuing them or demanding anything of them in the first place.
Aside: I mentioned earlier that I shouldn’t have used the term “swing*”, but you still seem hung up on it. Can we move past that? Apologies, again; I hadn’t realized it would be so offensive to the poly crowd.
The term itself is not the problem. The problem was that your original post claimed that the only bit you objected to was the sexual aspect. Clearly, this is not the case, but, for reasons I am uncertain of, you still seem to be standing by your original statement as an accurate one.
I am trying to make it clear to you that what you are asking them to give up is NOT just about the sex. What you are asking them to give up is the option to LOVE other people. Which is very different from just asking them to give up the option to FUCK other people.
No one asked me for a list of all conditions I place on relationships. So I stated one and not others. Accurate is different from complete. You are noticing incompleteness and accusing it of inaccuracy.
I was not surprised / learned nothing new about my preferences when I noted that I need to be the most important person to my partner.
Agreed. It’s also about relative levels of significance. Not sure why you think that is not clear. I hope it is now clear that it is.
As long as they don’t love them as much as they love me, and as long as that love doesn’t become sexual/romantic, then no, I am not.
My partner can love her family and friends, as can I. But no matter how much she loves those friends, I would be quite surprised and hurt if she told me one of them were as important to her as I am.
Incompleteness claimed as completeness is inaccuracy. Your statement referred to poly as having precisely two sides, the sexual side (which you had a problem with) and everything else (which you didn’t).
It turns out you DO have a problem with the everything else side.
That is incompleteness posing as completeness, which is inaccuracy.
Why would you be hurt by this?: this is honest curiosity on my part, because I don’t understand that sort of thinking. I can’t see any harm to you, so I find myself confused.
Good thing I didn’t claim, in my original statement, to be stating anything precise about polyamory or about my own list of preferences. Else I’d be in trouble.
It is the harm of not being Most Important. This is something I value—it makes me happy to be the center of my partner’s world, and her mine. I consider removal of things I value to be harms.
jmed, you seem to consider admitting previous inaccuracy a bad thing. This whole site is based around the idea that coming in, one will be wrong, and leaving one will be less wrong. Why is it so hard for you to accept that what you wrote was wrong?
Would you feel similarly harmed if your partner revealed that she considered all of her friends and family put together (as a collective, but not individually) to be more important than you as an individual?
Considering I already, in the comments of this one LW post, apologized to various folks for being unclear and using terms inaccurately (“swinger”), you seem to be mistaken.
It isn’t hard, when I actually agree that what I write is wrong, which certainly happens enough.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that your interpretation can be wrong? Especially given all the oft-repeated basic LW knowledge on miscommunication and people-talking-past-one-another?
Hmm. I feel like I would not be as hurt by that, because social network is important, but I would be surprised by it. I think my partner would abandon them to stay with me if such a choice were forced (let’s say by some sort of relocation protection program whereby she is safe with me or without me, but once the choice is made, no contact with me or them can ever be made again).
Because I am looking at what you wrote, not what you think you wrote.
You wrote that you’d want a person to give up the sexual side of poly, but not the other side. This says that there are two parts to poly in your mind, and only the sexual part is a problem. This isn’t, in fact, true, the non-sexual side is also a problem to you; as the non-sexual part would still compromise your position of importance.
However I suppose this has dragged on long enough, and there is unlikely to be any value extracted from this part of the conversation, so you may feel free to state your piece, and I will read it, but probably not respond unless you request me to.
Okay, thank you for the information. It’s a valuable insight into how other people differ from me. You are certainly the sort of person who I would call naturally monoamorous, and incapable of happy polyamory. By the sounds of it you and your partner are both happy with this, so :-D.
EDIT: I suppose, to avoid being hypocritical, I should apologise for my incorrect belief that you were unwilling to accept being incorrect :p
Ditto.
Yup yup. And :-D to you figuring out what makes you happiest, and finding others with whom to live that way.
Accepted, and thanks again.