Topics to discuss when opening up your relationship
This is really long. It's 18 pages. So when I say that this is cut for your protection, believe me, I mean it.
Introduction
Sometimes Monogamous people consider the possibility of seeing other people. Usually they cheat, if they are going to do it, statistically speaking, but occasionally they consider the bizarre notion that they might actually talk it over with their partner. The intent of this article is to provide a starting point for such an endeavor. If you are considering opening up your preexisting relationship, trying some form of ethical non-monogamy, this article will try to point out topics that should be discussed (at a minimum) before actually going out and trying such a silly thing.
There is no way that this can be answered exhaustively, as with so many other things in human relationships, a lot depends on the particulars of the relationship, and the couples' individual and shared experience, knowledge, beliefs, and values. I'm going to take a stab at hitting the highlights and dig in a little to each, perhaps providing a starting place for someone (perhaps YOU) to have some conversations with their significant other.
Surprising Interlude
When I write, I tend to be both verbose and repetitive. I will write a document that ends up being double-digit pages when I could've answered the specific question in half a page. I like the long version, whether I'm listening, speaking, or writing. I don't always like the long version when I'm reading.
Take Tolkien or Martin for instance. I love Middle Earth, but I can do without the repetitive and voluminous description of war and death that chokes the pages at time. I love the Ice and Fire novels, but George will wax on about a meal as if the poor man is starving. I've seen pictures. He's doing just fine on the caloric balance sheet. I don't know, maybe he's a frustrated chef. His plan has been to make the easy money as an author to finance his dream of opening up a Medieval-themed gourmet restaurant.
So, I'm going to cut to the chase and just answer the question. After the I provide the initial list, I will expound at length, allowing you, gentle reader, to choose whether to get on with what you want to do with the rest of your life or to explore some or all of the balance. This feels weird to me, but I think it might be useful for people who don't want to have to wade through four pages of Orc guts or a page and a half of roasted turnips smothered in rich, creamery butter with parsnips. Heck, I used to think “parsnip” was just another name for turnip before I read Martin.
Here it is:
1. Why do this at all?
2. What does success look like and what specifically will it give us that we don't have now?
3. How do we define a “failure” and how do we handle it when/if one happens?
4. How much information will we share with each other, how should it be presented, and when do we have those conversations?
5. How much information will we share with other people, how should it be presented, and when do we have those conversations?
6. What agreements around Fluid Bonding, Safer Sex Practices, and STI Testing will we start with?
7. How can we prevent couple privilege from poisoning our potential relationships?
8. When are we going to review/renegotiate all of this?
1. Why?
Why on earth would you ever open up a relationship? Only weird people do it. It's really unlikely to work. The enterprise is fraught with peril. Trying to manage and balance everything is untenable. I've never heard of it actually working out well. Relationships always end up breaking up when they head down this path. It's been too long since I've dated, I've forgotten how to even meet people. Did I mention the peril?
As you can see, these are objections not reason. People who focus on the negative may make fewer mistakes (a claim for which I would ask a citation be presented in support of were it actually made), but they also tend to be less happy, less fulfilled, and less successful than people who focus on the positive. If you want to tear something down, to rip it apart, then focusing on the negative will pay you dividends.
If, on the other hand, you want to be successful, to accomplish great things, then you are almost necessarily forced into looking at things through the lens of asking how something great can be done. Does that mean that we just ignore what the critic has said in their analysis of why our plan won't work? No! We need to be realistic, consider pitfalls, and incorporate that into our plan so that we end up succeeding.
The focus, however, needs to remain on how we are going to achieve our goals, not on why we might not. Acknowledging challenges is great, but only as part of a process whereby we find and implement solutions. People in sales refer to this as “overcoming objections”. Good sales people do not depend on forensic tricks or balderdash to do so. They genuinely match their customer with the right product for that customer's specific situation. That is our goal here.
So, let's try one more time, why on earth would anyone ever want to open up there relationship? Well, for some people it's natural to have some form of non-monogamy. To these people the idea of a restrictive model where you have one exclusive romantic partner has always struck them as foreign or artificial. I know because I fit into this category. From an early age I knew I was different from the cultural ideals and models that I saw represented around me. I “felt” normal, but I “knew” I must be weird. In my experience, having a Polyamorous orientation is not the most common way that people “turn out”. For many people, Polyamory is not an “orientation”, but rather, Polyamory is a choice.
Alright, if you're naturally monogamous, or perhaps you want to sidestep the entire conversation about what “natural” is, a good idea in my opinion, you need to give a person reasons for why exploring Polyamory has value. What do you get? Well, given that you're reading this in the first place, you must have some idea. Either that, or you're researching a paper for a class and happened to find this while searching for material. I can't find many reasons, only two really, so I'll get right to them.
Surprise, I'm gay!
Sometimes it takes a while for us to figure out our sexual orientation. Heck, I figured out I was bisexual at 25 and many people are married by that age. I was fairly slow to the party, but I've heard stories about people who came out at twice that age or even older. Sometimes people are less than honest (what?!) and have been engaging in a relationship that isn't entirely congruent with their identity. They might be doing so for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's more subtle than all of that.
What if you are bisexual, you know that, and you are looking to date someone. Okay, if you aren't Poly (or Open, or willing to cheat) how are you ever going to have everything you desire? The simple answer is that you can be bisexual & monogamous, and you can have a deeply fulfilling & rewarding long-term relationship with integrity. Just because you identify as bisexual, it doesn't necessarily mean that you MUST have sexual access to both genders to feel happy, content, and fulfilled. However, for some bisexuals, it DOES mean that. Some bisexual people DO feel as though they have to shut down a part of themselves in order to date any single individual.
Well, let's suppose that you are already in a relationship that you value and you don't want to just throw it all away. You have built things together, you love your partner, you might even have children or own property together. It doesn't really matter whether you were gay, or whether you are bi-curious. It doesn't really matter if you've been honest and something has changed, or whether you've been hiding in the closet your whole life (well, it might matter to the integrity of the relationship, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of what I'm discussing here). In fact, it doesn't matter if you are queer at all.
What?
The underlying principle being discussed here has nothing to do with gender identity. The underlying principle here is that a fundamental desire or need is not being met, but the relationship as a whole has value. That could be about gender identity. That could be about sexual appetite. That could be about emotional availability. That could be about anything that you get out of a romantic/sexual relationship.
What a person in this situation is saying is, “There is something I need, I'm not getting it, but I'm not willing to; A) Throw out the relationship; or B) Go without my needs being met.” This is an amazing combination of healthy self-esteem (avoiding the unhealthy pattern of self-denial, self-blame, shaming) and following through on commitments that have been made to a partner who you have a deep investment in. This can be due to growing apart in certain areas of your life. This can be due to health issues arising from illness or an accident. The specific reason isn't important. The key is that your answer is to refute the false dichotomy that you need to suck it up and deal with the way things are, or leave the relationship.
Scarcity vs. Abundance
Here is where we are going to dive into the deep end of the pool. There is an entirely different reason that many people choose Polyamory as a relationship model. It doesn't have to be an attempt at saving a relationship that is being threatened. In fact, this section gives a powerful argument for why a person might consider Polyamory regardless of whether or not they are currently in a relationship at all.
Many of the underpinnings of Poly philosophy are related to the concept of “abundance”. This is contrasted by the concept of “scarcity”. Often, these terms are used to describe material goods, especially money or natural resources. In this case the terms are referring to human resources.
The Scarcity Model of Relationships is prevalent throughout our society. The idea is that there is “One True Love” (often referred to simply as “The One”) out there, somewhere, and you must be ever vigilant in your never-ending search for your sole soul mate, the one individual in all of the world who will complete you as none other ever could. There are a lot of problems with this world view, but without looking too hard, one several should smack you in the face. Let me focus on just one objection.
There's a whole lot of “The Ones” out there for you.
You see, the truth is, finding people you like isn't rare unless there is a different problem. Let me pause for a moment, because while this other “problem” should also be fairly obvious, I would still like to spell it out because that's what I do. If you aren't a friendly person, if you aren't warm, accepting, engaging, pleasant, and open to making friendships and connections with other people, why in the holy hell do you think anyone should be that way to you?
There is a cliché about “reaping what you sew” which is absolutely valid. In sales it's called “mirroring”. People find it comfortable to have their own actions, words, postures, and expressions modeled back to them. There is not only a safe-feeling predictability in it, there is also a selection towards happiness and positive interactions. When you are nice to other people it is shocking how often they are nice back to you.
This power of reciprocity has been studied and it is remarkable. A common experiment that is suggested is this: smile and make gentle eye contact when passing people during the day. Don't stare them down. Don't give them a creepy “Jack Nicholson” leer. Just a smile, a bit more than a glance, and move on. People smile back. It's fun. It's so fun, in fact, that I've incorporated it into my life, and while I don't do it absolutely all the time (yet!), I find myself doing it more and more often because of the positive feelings it generates inside, seeing their reaction.
Take it further. If you develop the habits and traits that you admire, you will find that other people with those traits will not only recognize them in you, they will actively seek you out. It's bizarre. This is one of the great secrets to successful dating that is all too often ignored. Become a better you and you will attract a higher quantity and quality of potential partners. To clarify, I'm not talking about changing your principles or beliefs. I don't mean that you need to stop/start believing in God, you don't need to switch political parties, you don't need to change your values. This is about presentation. This is about changing what you believe, it's about how you communicate what you believe.
If you are being a sullen, insecure, grumpy person in your daily interactions, many people are not going to find you appealing. If on the other hand you strive towards positivity, happiness, success, and a sense of confidence, what you will find is that there isn't just “The One”, there are actually a bunch of them. The Scarcity Model is a lie. It's a lie that is told to make people feel comfortable with less. It is a lie that has persisted because it serves to comfort those who are “too insecure” to try, to grow, to break through the barriers of apathy and fear, and to consider the possibility of saying, “I want more and I can have more”.
On the other side is the Abundance Model. It says that in a world of very nearly 7 billion people, there aren't just “several” people who would be a match for you, there are thousands, perhaps millions. I believe that there is another very good reason that the Scarcity Model is so pervasive, so difficult to shrug off. We have a historical narrative that explains why this used to be true, but the world has changed.
This planet has shrunk drastically. It is a very small place today. We are able to connect with people on every continent in real time via phone or the internet. Not so long ago, this was not the case. This is another thing that we can take from the discipline of sales. It's a numbers game. If you grow up in a town of 10,000 people, and you could only meet people within that pool, then yes, I am willing to cede that finding your “One True Love” is going to be a challenge. I'm also willing to agree that some people are still in fairly limited settings. Not everyone lives in a metropolitan area with 1 million or more people. Not everyone has computers. Not everyone has phones.
However, if you are reading this, then you have most likely been introduced to the internet. There are a vast array of communication tools and media available for your enjoyment. If you are reading this, you can meet millions of people electronically. Distance is an issue for a relationship, but given the resources available today in the industrialized world, most people can pack up and move. Now, there is always a danger that this amazing 23 year old woman you met online is actually a 42 year old guy who lives in his parent's basement, but Skype and other online video chat tools have reduced the likelihood of this sort of deception being carried too far.
The truth is that there are so many wonderful, exciting, interesting people in the world who would make wonderful, exciting, and interesting partners for you that you will never be able to talk to them all, much less pursue relationships with anything but a tiny fraction of them. The world is one of abundance and the sooner you realize this statistical fact, the sooner you will begin to find them all around you.
This realization has a side-benefit. As you are open to the possibilities surrounding you every day, you will grow more confident, more open to others, and you will become happier. Did I mention that confidence is really, really attractive? This ties into what I said above about being a better you, adopting the traits that you admire and want in a partner. Switching frames, understanding these concepts actually propel you down the path of becoming that person. All it takes is a shift in thoughts, a realization, an acceptance, and you are headed toward something truly remarkable.
Okay, but why be Poly?
That is a very good question. Nothing I said in the section above necessarily points towards Poly. The idea of adopting this framework, the Abundance Model, is beneficial to Monogamous people and Polyamorous people alike. It does, however, beg a question. If finding one person who is wonderful and exciting and interesting is good, then might it not be better to have two such people in your life?
The Monogamous reader is likely to say, “Yeah, they're called friends.” Valid. There is nothing wrong with moving through life this way. It is perfectly reasonable to say, “One and no more”, when it comes to romantic partners. You can do that. I feel moved, however, to commit the cardinal sin of answering the question with a question.
“Why not?”
Ultimately, this is derived from the Abundance Model, not directly, but indirectly, intuitively. If you can have more, experience more, why wouldn't you? You might argue that if $1 benefits your life, it is likely that $2 would have even more value? This does not scale linearly. As with many economic questions there are issues surrounding opportunity costs, diminishing returns, and indirect or hidden costs as well. This is not a deductively persuasive logical argument that proves that Polyamory is superior. It isn't. It is an inductively persuasive argument that Polyamory should be considered. It seems worth investigating. Depending on those variables mentioned above regarding costs and expected returns, it becomes a valid option for a person to explore.
If you can have more, if you can experience more, if you can be more, why wouldn't you explore that? The answer isn't always “yes”. For some people Monogamy is the correct choice, no doubt. There is nothing wrong with that. But the idea that Monogamy is somehow “natural” or “superior” is lacking evidence. There is a bold “Citation Needed” label taped to that claim.
So, if either of these reasons sounds compelling, then you need to talk to your partner (assuming you have one, you are reading an article about opening up a relationship, after all). Integrity is essential to healthy relationships. If you're going to do this, please, please, please commit yourself to a high standard of integrity in everything you do. Any sort of relationship structure with multiple people (co-workers at a business, membership in a club or social group, Poly romantic connections) will blow up in an unholy hell of hot, burning fireworks that is in direct proportion to the amount of emotional energy invested in the situation. Less impact if someone is found out to be a cheater at the local bridge club (though not to the members who are heavily invested in group), considerably more if it's a coworker, and as you might expect, when it's someone you're sexual with, it can feel like your world is ending.
2. What do we want?
Wait, isn't this the same thing that you just talked about for like 5 pages? We want “more”, right? Or to get our needs met? Is this you being repetitive again? Well, maybe. I think there's more to it than just that. Let's see what happens if I keep typing for a while.
Step one, brainstorm. Each of you should throw ideas at the wall and see what sticks. The goal is to include all of the positives on a single list (the negative items go on a separate list, save them for later, see section 3). Include everything you've already discussed, assuming you have had some conversations already, and continue past that point in order to uncover the unspoken assumptions and desires, to get them “on the table” so that they can be considered as well. This investment in disclosure pays enormous dividends. There could be problems revealed that were completely unexpected or desires that each of you share that you didn't realize were unmet. Sometimes your partner says that they want something that you secretly wanted too, but thought was off the table.
As you have this conversation, it is important to keep options open (remember, you're brainstorming), be flexible, and to not firmly determine concepts about a person you haven't even met yet (more on that in section 7). However, that doesn't mean that you can't consider what it is you want, specifically. You just need to not be overly attached to the minutiae. It's a balance. Have a direction, yes. Even discuss specifics, but, keep an open mind about them.
Say, “I might like it if I found someone who would go hiking with me”, not, “I promise that I'll only date someone who is a hiker, because that would justify having a relationship with someone besides you.” If finding someone to go hiking with is really the key, don't date, join a meet-up. Hiking has nothing to do with a romantic relationship. You're using a criteria from one category (activity partners) and putting into another (romantic partners).
Note, I'm not saying that romantic partners shouldn't have shared activities with you, quite the opposite is true. What I'm saying is that any specific non-romantic, non-sexual activity is very unlikely to be a specific necessity (see my article, “Preferences, Necessities, and the question of Sufficiency” if it's published when you're reading this for more on these ideas) for having a romantic relationship. It can be a preference, it can be a supporting element, it can be deeply rewarding, but there are other outlets to getting that desire or need met, due to the nature of the activity.
Now, if you want to have someone to go hiking with, find a shady spot off a path, strip naked, and have sex outdoors... if that's been a life long fantasy... now we're talking! That's pretty specific, so it will take some looking (or you could ask me, I'm pretty sure I know some people who would be down with that), but at that point, “I really want to find a partner who likes hiking” starts to make sense.
If it's a one-off thing, something you want to check off of your bucket list, then maybe a partner who is not so interested in hiking as a rule would go out of their way to indulge you. If this is something you want to add to your weekly schedule, then it might be a valid criteria for selecting a romantic partner. Everything in this ballpark is context specific.
What are some common wants to discuss here? You could talk about desired structures. Do you want to both date one person? Do you want to date someone who is a different gender than your preexisting partner? Do you want to have a friendship with your metamour (partner of your partner) because of their importance in your partner's life, or do you want to have as little information as possible about that connection (DADT... “don't ask, don't tell”)? Do you want to be completely out in your life about Poly? Do you want to potentially move a new partner into the household? There really isn't a wrong answer here, though it's possible to find somethings that upon further consideration don't really fit, such as the “hiking” example above.
3. What don't we want?
This is the other side of the same coin and the source material will flow out of the same conversation. Honestly, I could've just made 2 & 3 the same section, but this will have some different concerns that should be handled carefully. The “wants” are not as threatening, unless you set heavy expectations around how a person “must” be. The “don't wants”, or more specifically the situations that might arise that would lead one or both of you to say, “if this happen, I'm pulling the plug on this situation”, need to be carefully examined.
Take out your list of negative statements or feelings, things you don't want, as we will be working with those now. Again, as stated in the first section, you don't want to dwell here, constant rumination is a pitfall, but you do need to have a thorough and detailed conversation about the downsides, be explicit about it, and then move forward with a shared understanding of what each other's expectations are.
Reviewing your list, discuss how serious each item is, how it would make you feel. Break each of your items into one of three categories; “I'd rather not” (“desire”, “want”, or “preference”, depending on the flavor of the topic); “that would be really challenging” (“need”); or “hell no, we stop if that happens” (“deal-breaker”). Feel free to vary your labels, I use the ones in parentheses. The critical thing is that you have an understanding of how each of you expect you might feel about various problems, so that you both have a good faith understanding of how things are for yourself and your partner. Without investing sufficient time and energy here, a conversation like what I transcribe below is exponentially more likely.
Person 1: “I told you I didn't want that, we have to end this and go back to being Monogamous.”
Person 2: “What?! You said you didn't like that idea for YOU, not for ME. Besides, it clearly wasn't a big deal to you, you barely mentioned it.”
Person 1: “You didn't listen. I told you that I didn't want that, I was clear. You just ignored what I said because you were chasing after the 'new and shiny'! You didn't consider me at all!”
You can see the accusations flying back and forth. Let's look at what their previous conversation actually entailed (Going back in time 7 months):
Person 2: “So, what about overnight visits? If one of us wants to spend the night at someone else's place, would we need to discuss that ahead of time? What if things were going really well and we just fell asleep?”
Person 1: “When I think of doing that, it feels disrespectful of you. I don't like the idea of that becoming our new standard. I don't want that.” (stated flatly, downplaying the reciprocity that is felt internally. “When I think of doing that... so I also don't want you to do that”, is left unstated.)
Person 2 “Okay, I respect that.” (thinking, that it's mostly about them, and that it is not a preference, but it would probably be okay, since the words “can't”, “don't”, “never”, or “forbid” weren't used.)
The problem with Person 1's statement above is a lack of full disclosure. They are withholding important data trying to not appear insecure. Person 2 dropped the ball with their final statement, in that they didn't use reflective listening. They really needed to listen, conceptualize, and then paraphrase. They are guilty of assuming here, and it's even a self-serving assumption, which makes it worse.
Here would've been a much better response:
Person 2: “So, it's not something you would likely do, but if I do it's not really a big deal. You just don't want it to happen all the time, right?”
Person 1: “No! That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not okay if it happens at all. I mean, I wouldn't dump you if it happens once, but it feels disrespectful. If you're seeing someone new, and then stop showing me respect, I'm going to feel a lot of jealousy. I'm not okay with that.”
As I mentioned above, being new to Poly, it's unrealistic that someone is going to know what many of these situations will actually feel like. An important caveat with everything discussed so far is that these conversations, the initial reasons, the positives, and the negatives, are all speculative. While your educated guesses will likely be accurate some of the time, it is almost certain that you will be surprised, from time to time, by your actual responses when you find yourself in these situations. Even experienced Poly people like myself are regularly surprised at how things that were previously major roadblocks are now no big deal. The reverse is true as well, things that I used to accept whole-heartedly are no longer palatable. Not only do these feelings have a high degree of contextual specificity, but things shift over time.
“Nothing endures but change.” - Heraclitus
4. Disclosure: Quantity, Quality, & Timing.
This usually starts with a conversation around physical intimacy, but it applies to much, much more. This is not simply limited to, “Let me know when you are going to have sex for the first time.” This can include emotional issues like expectations of what role a new person might play in their partner's life, to events or actions like overnight visits or shared activities.
Before I dive into the topic at hand, I want to take a brief detour to explain a common fallacy. Often people who are exploring the idea of Poly have a fundamental misunderstanding about something... well, more than one thing... but one that is all too common is this idea:
“Poly means that there is no such thing as 'cheating'.”
It boggles the mind. Just to cover the bases, let me include my definition of Polyamory here:
“A model of romantic relationships wherein everyone involved accepts that there is no expectation of exclusivity, and everyone knows about each other person involved and what the various relationships look like, according to a mutually negotiated level of disclosure. Honest, open communication, and acting with integrity are the hallmarks of this form of ethical non-monogamy.”
So, if you have an agreement with a partner and then break that agreement, what would you call that? Oh, yeah, that's cheating. Cheating doesn't necessarily mean “having sex with someone else”, it has a larger meaning. It means “breaking a serious relationship commitment”. Nearly everything that might be considered “cheating” in a Poly relationship would be acceptable, if you insert one magical formula.
Communication + Consent = No Cheating.
Pretty simple. This is where we get into the idea of disclosure. When do you disclose information, when do you need to seek consent, and what specific information should you share when doing so. The details on this can vary wildly, according to the people involved, their values, their comfort level with the topics, and your previous agreements and understandings. Let me explain what I mean.
Quantity & Quality
When people are down on the end of the Poly-Style spectrum that is labeled “Free Agent” or lower, they often don't want much information, it's part of the definition of why they have that label. The types of things they do want to hear about tend to be in a more narrow range. They probably have fewer agreements about what they want or need to know about relationships outside of their specific dyad.
“You're going to the beach with your other boyfriend? Not on our weekend? Fine, that's cool. That's one of your favorite things, I hope you have a blast with that.”
“You had your first sleep-over with your new girlfriend? Congrats. I know that's always a big deal for you. I hope it went well. Do you need to talk about it?”
The emphasis is on their direct partner not their metamour or the connection between their partner and their metamour. If they are interested at all, it is focused on how their partner felt about the experience. They are really focused on the dyad, and don't get much reward from the idea of their partner's other connections. In extreme cases, even this much disclosure is a problem. Some people have a policy of DADT. They don't want to even acknowledge that there are other partners, though it's understood that they exist in some vague, abstract sense.
A “Community” or “Family” person might have responses like this:
“You're going to the beach with your other boyfriend? Nice! Hey, you know, my new sweetie and I were talking about going to the coast too, maybe we could coordinate trips. Keep me in the loop about what the two of you would prefer. Make sure he's really comfortable with the idea, I don't want to butt in.”
“How did the sleep over go? Did you get a good night's sleep? I know that's something you've struggled with in the past. Do you think she felt like it went well? We should invite her over for hot tubbing again, it was fun last time.”
People in this range are genuinely curious and feel connected somewhat to the other relationships. They often ask questions about their metamours and will frequently consider their metamour's comfort in discussions about proposed plans. Also, notice that in the second example the speaker didn't need to be told about the sleep over, they KNEW it was going to happen. It was on their Google calendar. They are aware of what's going on, it's important to them. Their metamour isn't stealing their partner away from them, it's like their partner went out and found a new potential friend in their metamour. They are gaining from the other connections by assigning importance to them and being peripherally (or sometimes intimately) involved themselves. Note the congruence of this position to the Abundance model.
Whatever your style of Poly, it is important to have an understanding of how much detail you will want about what is going on within your partner, about their internal process, as well as what is going on with their other connections, and even with your metamours. Some people love the whole enchilada (and I mean the whole enchilada, including pictures) while others want considerably less. It's not enough to say, “Oh, just give me a general picture”, that is almost worthless. Give examples.
“Tell me when you have important milestones so I can celebrate them with you. First kiss. When you start using labels like 'girlfriend' or certainly 'partner'. I want to know before you have sex the first time. Things like that are important, but the day to day stuff, I don't really care about.”
“If you're dating someone else, I really don't want to know anything. I want to understand that you love and respect me, and that you are being safe. I want you to seek your personal happiness, but the less I know about it, the easier everything will be for me.”
“I want to hear all the stories. If they are shy or don't want you to spill I'll try to deal with it, but I want to hear everything. I'm really excited by the idea that you are building new connections, having other relationships, and part of why I want to explore Poly is because it will be thrilling to vicariously experience your triumphs by hearing about your experience. Share everything you feel comfortable sharing.”
There isn't a “wrong” way to do this, as long as you avoid deception, in my opinion. I withhold my right to change my opinion on that, someday, but for now I think that as long as you are negotiating this and being completely honest and open about the process of negotiation, whatever outcome you arrive at is okay for you, even though the same choices might not work for someone else.
Timing
This may be less intuitive than the previous section, and it's a much smaller subject, however I've found it to be a powerful nuance, one that makes the difference between cheating and not cheating. When do you tell someone about something?
This also overlaps with a concept previously touched upon, the difference between notifying or seeking permission. That may also not be intuitive. I'll explain all of this, I promise. If you do see where this is going, congrats! I'll try to make it quick.
Using sex as an example, it's the most common instance of this for me personally, when do I need to be told that sex is on the menu for my partner and another connection? Do I need advance notice? How much? A week? A day? An hour? Do I need to be told before hand at all? What if it's okay that things can happen, and then I'm notified soon after the fact? How soon? An hour? A day? A week?
This idea of notice married with consent is the difference between cheating and not cheating. Some people don't care. They don't need to be notified of the possibility of their partner being sexual with metamours. These are the Open/Free Agent types, typically.
To clarify, I'm not talking about reports of every time that someone is sexual, I'm talking about a change in status with a partner where they are going from “we're seeing each other” to “sex might happen soon” to “we had sex”. Those sorts of notifications are important to many Poly people. This can be complicated by many factors. What if your metamour is NOT comfortable with the idea of your partner sharing information about their private business (Free Agent)? What if your partner is interested in non-relationship based sexual behavior (Casual or Recreational sex)? What if you and your partner differ on what “counts” as sex (ala Bill Clinton)?
I have different rules for each of these situations. First, I let my partners know that I'm not okay with them keeping secrets about who they are sexual with. I need to know about it before the fact whenever possible, but I don't need to know the tawdry/delicious details. There is an escape clause that “IF” something sexual happens unexpectedly, it's not a deal-breaker, but I do want to hear about that promptly. I can allow for unexpected chemistry in the flow of a connection sneaking up on a person, and I don't want them to quash that if something delightful happens.
That means that if they have a potential partner who is not comfortable with the idea of me knowing when they reach a stage in their relationship where they are being sexual, then my partner has a choice. They can tell my potential metamour to deal with it, they can tell me to deal with it, or they can opt to not date that person. Luckily for me, my partners see eye to eye with me on this issue, so it's a part of their partner selection criteria. That's because this topic is a part of my partner selection criteria. See how a lot of problems are alleviated by picking the right partner?
Second, I don't need to know who my partner sleeps with, in a recreational setting, or what exactly they do, but I do ask for certain assurances. I want to know that they are going out and that it's possible that something will happen. I want to know that they will take care of themselves, physically and emotionally, including the idea of setting up a “safe call” if they are not meeting in a public environment. Finally, afterwards, I want a check-in. It's usually very minor.
“Hey, how'd it go last night?”
“Great!”
“Did anything exciting happen?” (This is one of my code phrases for, “Did you have sex”. I like it because it is a more open question. It encourages them to relate a broader range of potentially exciting activities.)
“Ooh! There was this one little...”.
Third, the idea of what is “sex”, is not really a “Timing” issue, so much as it's a “Quality” issue. I tend to have a broad, cognitive-relativistic definition of what is considered sex. The closest I can come to putting it into words would be, “If you think you're having sex, you're having sex.” This allows for potential shenanigans with people manufacturing false claims of what they perceived in the moment, but I select against those people pretty stringently. Integrity, openness, honesty, start there, and these corner-case examples go away. Remember, partner selection alleviates a lot of these problems.
Last point here, I want to pick up the piece from before about the difference between notification and seeking permission. Some people bristle at the idea of being told that they are expected to let their partner know “before” sex happens. They can feel as though they are asking permission for something that they fundamentally don't feel they need to ask permission for. This is a “Timing” issue that creeps up on people. I have seen passive dissent on this point that was really surprising. People “forget” to mention it and when called on it, they confess that they really hate this part.
If you run into one of these people, good luck. You can discuss this at length, trying to point out the difference between notification and permission. You can give up your request for a “heads up” of likely changes. If you can work out a way to get them to opt in and try doing it your way, they will see that you always say, “Yes” (not actually, you will say, “Thank you for letting me know, I hope you have a great night”, unless you actually ARE trapping them into seeking permission). Hopefully after a while they see that you are really not seeking to control their access to sex outside the relationship and believe you.
If you are playing a game around this topic, stop it! Find your underlying need, why do you need them to ask your permission, and seek a way to get that need met overtly instead of covertly. Remember, honesty, openness, integrity. Live it.
5. To be out, or not to be out, that is the question.
This one won't require a lot of writing, here, but it will require a lot of consideration and discussion when you are opening up a relationship. There are real consequences to doing so. If you are a parent, be aware that some people have had Polyamory cited in court as a reason to revoke custody of their children. If you are self-employed, be aware that clients may choose to do business with someone else, certain that your “immoral lifestyle” is a sign of a “weak character”. If you are not self-employed, be aware that “Polyamorous” is not a protected minority status.
Okay, is that all? Not necessarily. Who are you friends with? Would they all be comfortable with your decision? Would you family? Your parents? Your children? This is not easy. For many people, reading this, I'm fairly certain that a close approximation of your position at the moment is, “Hell no, I'm not going to be out as Polyamorous!” That's not an entirely unjustified position, however, I would argue, and will, in fact, that there are some benefits to being out.
First, there is only one way that Polyamory is going to gain widespread acceptance, and that is to have people be out and to have those people model healthy relationship skills. Polyamory is in it's “15 minutes of fame” phase right now. It's on TV, on the web, and in movies. It's actually hip and edgy. There are drawbacks to that, but so be it. If you aren't out, then it's going to be more challenging for everyone else.
Second, you are more likely to find what you are looking for if more people know that you are Poly. You might be working with people who are Poly, or are open to the idea, or who have never considered it and might be open to it, if only they ever encountered the concept. You could be a role model and find a potential partner all at the same time. Hurray for multitasking!
Third, you are going to have a lot more harmony in your relationships and spend a lot less effort on certain aspects of relationship maintenance if you are out. There are none of the issues of keeping stories straight, trying to remember who knows what, or those delightful occasions when someone accidentally outs you, either in person, when your worlds collide (hint: they will) or on social media (far more likely in today's world). This happens all the time.
Finally, you will experience huge benefits in your internal world. The anxiety that exists when you are hiding something, the fear, it is pervasive and insidious. It is not crushing or overwhelming, at least not for most people, rather it is ever lurking under the surface, eroding stability. It leaks out in unexpected ways at unpredictable times. This is relative. Some people are more sensitive to it's effects than others. If you grew up “normal”, if you've never been the one who has been “in the closet”, or dealt with the effects of societal privilege, then you can't understand it's effects on a visceral level.
I have been out my entire life, so of course I am going to tell you to be out. I want to moderate my message. Don't do what I'm saying. Talk to someone you know and trust who has been in the closet at some point in their life (probably the most common example would be a friend who identifies somewhere in the GLBT spectrum, but there are others) and then talk to someone who has dealt with societal privilege (racial, gender, etc) and ask them about the how that has effected them. You'll have to find someone you are fairly close to in order to get honest input. Even with close friends, some of these topics are so deeply personal that they might not give you an extensive picture.
Consider the following options:
1) Be out everywhere.
2) Be out everywhere, except professionally.
3) Be out to friends, but not professionally or to family.
4) Be out to a close ring of confidants, but nobody else.
5) Be out to absolutely nobody. (Wait, how do we meet people again?)
Your answer likely falls somewhere in the middle three. If you join me at the top, congrats! The important piece is that it's very, very difficult to not be on the same page, on this point, as your partner. Unless you lead quite separate lives, you are going to need to see eye to eye on this one.
6. Cooties!!!
This one is a regular conversation point in Poly circles, and a contentious one. It bumps up against two diametrically opposed world views that are mirrored in our (American) political discourse. The ideas of individual rights and responsibilities (the Right) and communal benefits and obligations (the Left). Each side is valuable, but the one that is most important to you personally, the tie-breaker that decides your actions, often determines which side of various political and economic discussions you will end up supporting.
In Poly, the idea that you have more than one sexual partner means that you are going to increase the potential risk for transmission of disease. If, for example, you have a Monogamous dyad, and they are both free from STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection, the new term for “STD”) and both are faithful to each other, then there is a strong likelihood that they will continue to remain free from infection. When you add another person to the mix, now the circle of trust is expanded, regardless of whether you are going to all be fluid bonded, but if you are, then it is magnified. That raises a significant question. When is it worth the risk?
On one hand there is a fundamental sense of unfairness that there is an inherent limit to “our” relationship, because of an agreement in “your” relationship. This is unavoidable. The only way to truly erase this issue is to not be sexual. If you want to take one step into the pond, dip your toe in as it were, you could say that you will enforce a strict standard of safer sex practices in all of your sexual activity, with every partner you may ever have. There is still risk there. But often, when you are part of a monogamous dyad, and you are looking to potentially open your relationship up, the two of you are already fluid bonded.
Given that, what do you do? Tell any new partner that they are necessarily in a disadvantaged position and they have to accept a latex barrier for penetrative sex? For oral sex? Dental dams suck and condoms reduce sensitivity. A Free Agent Poly person is far less likely to accept such restrictions. They see their relationship as being dyadic. They might be willing to get tested and share the results with their partner, but the idea of unilaterally accepting such a restriction is going to seem inherently less fair. They are on “the Right”, using my connection to political ideology from above.
On “the Left” we have the more community-minded individuals who are concerned about everyone's health and welfare. They would be more willing to accept limitations for the good of the group, but still, let's imagine that you are asking a preexisting partner to STOP being fluid bonded for the sake of exploring open relationships. I can't imagine many situations where that will go over well. Seems like that would qualify as a “deal-breaker” for many if not most people given the frequent emotional connection associated with being fluid bonded.
So, looking at the situation, it seems that there is going to be a default “privilege” here that we are not going to get away from. That is my take on it. I accept it when dating someone new and I expect it to be respected in turn. When someone begins dating me, I describe my fluid bonded status, and let them know that I have a certain level of safer sex expectations with any additional partners (aka them). Likewise, when I date someone new, and they give me a similar message, I am both accepting and supportive of their stance, despite any inconvenience I may be faced with personally.
This is, I believe, the only “universal exception” that I recognize in the “Couple Privilege” ballpark. There is room to consider the idea of moving towards a place where someone is accepted into fluid bonded status, but that is never assumed to be a goal. It needs to be discussed at length.
In case you hadn't figured this out by now, STI testing is a regular part of Poly life. This might be a revelation, and perhaps I should have led off with this, but if you are going to have multiple relationships, and they have multiple relationships, etc., you are going to need to make this a routine part of your life. Much more so if any of your connections engage in recreational sex. Latex is not a magical protection against “cooties”. It is an effective barrier for some purposes, working much of the time, but it is not infallible, nor is it effective against certain infections. If you are going to do this, please take the time to educate yourself on this topic. Unless you are a health care professional or an educator in that field, I almost guarantee that part of what you “know” is actually not true. There is a lot more misinformation in circulation than there is good science.
This is an investment in yourself and your partners that you can't skimp on. You need to do the research. You need to get tested. Do it.
7. Couple Privilege.
I've already alluded to this, so let me keep this brief. If you want a fuller picture of what this is all about, you can go read my “Unicorn Hunter” article. It is a core challenge, perhaps the #1 issue that causes problems with any couple who are brand new to Poly (though it is not limited to those who are “new”), opening up their relationship.
In the briefest possible terms, the idea is that people in a preexisting relationship build rules and limitations on a new partner so that they are inherently disadvantaged. There are many examples of this, both blatant and not so obvious. It has many subtle manifestations, but there are plenty that are not subtle at all. Veto is not subtle. There is nothing subtle about the idea that I can change my mind about your partner at any time, even after having previously agreed to your relationship with them, after the two of you have grown quite close, I can use my veto and expect you to cut off all contact.
That's a drastic example. It doesn't need to be that extreme to show you how horrible Couple Privilege is, but that is perhaps the iconic example. A more subtle form of Couple Privilege, I refer to as the “box”, where a preexisting couple sets expectations, makes plans, and describes a role for a future partner when they haven't even met anyone yet. The build a “box” that the new person is supposed to fit into, happily, even though they had no say in what it would look like. This is a very realistic and very common example of Couple Privilege.
So, I've just described a process of figuring out what you want, setting expectations, and deciding if you should try this. That's what this entire article IS. Now I'm telling you that it's bad? No. Not entirely. Here is the distinction. You need to figure out what you want, you need to identify where the edges are, and then you need to have an open mind about the whole thing. You should NOT start identifying what your partner will look like, be like, or act like. Anytime you and your partner set an expectation or make a “rule”, you are creating something that will very possibly be a source of discomfort or actual emotional pain for the person that one of you will eventually be dating. Every preexisting rule or restriction is an external limitation on the new person, by definition, because they weren't there to have a say in it.
How do you limit the impact of Couple Privilege with a new partner? I'm so glad you asked.
1) Don't formulate things as rules, or if you do so, minimize the frequency. I've already said that I tend to regard the topic of fluid bonding as a universal exception to this. Outside of that, there aren't many others I feel warm and fuzzy about.
2) Don't set expectations about what the new person will be like. Decide what you want or need. Discuss what you are more comfortable with or less comfortable with, certainly, but don't describe what this person needs to be or has to have, outside of some character traits or skill sets. What do I mean? I find it entirely reasonable to say that someone you are going to date needs to have strong communications skills and solid integrity. Those are character traits and skills that are useful in any relationship. Avoid things like, “I'm looking for a submissive switch who will be my pet, since you aren't kinky at all, but will also like cleaning our house, and will run errands, and who will do our shopping, and who will...”. That's not about relationship skills, that's about unpaid domestic labor.
Likewise avoid, “Well, I will only see her once per week, and it needs to be Monday evenings or Thursday evenings, but on Thursdays she would only get 2 hours, because it can't cut into our time for the meeting. Also, no matter what, she will never be a Primary, she will always be a Secondary. Oh, and she has to ask permission if she wants to come over, even though we'll give her a key, because this is your house, and you wouldn't feel right if she just let herself in.”
3) Remember those notes you took for section 2 and 3? When you start dating, if you've think you've found a keeper, if you intend to continue dating them and see where this is going, take those notes out and share them. Disclosure. Transparency. Communication. Honestly. Say, “Hey, here is where we are coming from. Here is what we are afraid of. Here is what we are hoping for. Here are agreements that we've talked about. You're pretty cool. If we are going to keep dating, how do you feel about all of this? What input would you have? Tell me/us what you think.”
The “me/us” is because depending on the scenario it would make sense to have this conversation either 1:1 or all together. It's usually best to do it 1:1, as facing both people usually feels like someone is being ganged up on, but for some people it's better to all be together. If the new partner is really confident and strong, or if you are all dating each other, then all three of you should sit down and have the talk. Be careful to be very clear that it who will be participating. Ambushing people is really bad. Setting expectations is critical.
4) Pretend for a moment that the new person is actually the preexisting person. As a thought experiment, think about every agreement you have (sans fluid bonding) and ask yourself, “Does that make sense?” You will have issues because some of the agreements will be idiosyncratic to the personalities involved, but doing this should point out red flags. If you think, “Oh my God, that's backwards. That's totally not fair”, bingo, you've found an issue for discussion. If it's not fair to your preexisting partner, odds are it's not fair to your new partner.
8. That was fun, let's do it all again!
What?
Okay, so you have decided to try this Polyamory thing, open up your relationship, meet other people, whatever. You've sat down several times, over the course of weeks, maybe even months, and really looked at the idea. You've talked about everything I've listed here and maybe more. What do you mean, “do it all again”?
Remember the part above where I talked about how this is all guesswork? You won't actually know how it will feel until you get there. Well, here is a truth to Poly, which really has nothing to do with Poly. It's a truth about life. In fact, I mentioned it already above. I even included a handy-dandy quote from a dead Greek guy.
Everything changes.
This degree of negotiating relationship is a never ending process. You don't do this once. You will do it with each new relationship. You will do it time and time again within the relationships you have. You will do it when there are significant changes. Note, I said “significant” not large. What is or is not “significant”, in this context, is not always obvious or expected.
Welcome to Poly. You will be more conscious of your agreements and commitments than you probably ever have been. It's not necessarily true. Like I said a few paragraphs up, this isn't actually about Polyamory. This is necessitated when you are Poly, but there are Monogamous people who have these skills and this kind of focus as well.
I should say, this is necessary if you want to have functional Poly relationships. I have seen examples of people who do NOT do these sorts of things. There are people who do not act with integrity, do not have honest communications, do not negotiate for what they want, and I have seen the fruits of their labors. They are the “Drama Llamas”. These are people who spread discord throughout their relationship networks, spitting drama and chaos on everyone who comes within reach. I really don't like drama in my relationships.
So, one of the topics you should decide is when are you going to come back together and review this. Some people schedule it regularly, once a year, twice a year, quarterly. Some people do it whenever a new interest enters the picture. Some people don't do it regularly at all. It can be sporadic. Some people use the “if it ain't broke, don't fix it” guideline. If things are going well, great. When there is a problem, then let's deal with the problem and also use that as an impetus to review some of the other agreements and expectations that had been previously set. That approach can allow the wheels to veer drastically off track over time before the problem is noticed, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
There isn't one way that this should look. It will serve you well to incorporate these ideas into some sort of plan and try to enact it, even if it's not perfect. If you are new to all of this, I would lean toward being a bit more firm in my advice. Given that this article is aimed at very new people, let me take a swing at a guideline.
Have the conversations. Come to understandings. Make agreements. Then, when one of you start dating a person, review it. You don't need to start from scratch, but keep your notes and when you get to that point, pull them out and look them over. Does it still sound like a good idea. Talk it out.
So far so good. I would review again when the other person starts a relationship. I would review again after either of you have been in a relationship at the 3-month, 6-month and 12-month marks as well. Yep, that's a lot. That's my advice. Do with it what you will. It's partially arbitrary, but not entirely. Relationships follow patterns and go through cycles. At the 3-month mark you should be able to pull your head out of your ass just long enough to come up for air and have a productive conversation. What do I mean? NRE. New Relationship Energy.
You can Google it if you like. I might write about it someday, but I don't have any current plans to. Others have already written good things on it. Read some of it. It's called “the Pink Fluffy Stupids” in my circle. The idea is when you start a new relationship you have a period of limerence, excitement and focus wherein your judgment is often compromised. If NRE is steering you off course, catch it now.
At the 6-month mark routines have been established and new patterns are stabilizing. Another good time to review. If you have been drifting slowly, to one side or the other, it should be noticeable at this point. Small things, not worth bringing up at the time, ought to be recognizable. Encourage your partner to bring up the minor issues, ticky-tack stuff. Tell them you really want to hear anything they have. You might laugh, but this “minor issue” today will cause a divorce 6 and a half years from now. Talk about it now. Find a solution now. Stop it from festering.
At the 12-month mark everything could be different. This one is more arbitrary than the other two. It sounded good, so I made it up. If things are still going well after a year, maybe Polyamory will be worth pursuing. If things aren't going well, change them. Go back to being Monogamous. Stay Poly, but fix the parts that are broken. Skip Poly and go explore Swinging. Ditch your partners entirely and join a monastery. The choices are yours, but unless you take these periodic breaks to reevaluate what you are doing and where you are going, they aren't choices, it's just passive acceptance of what life is shoving in your face.
Don't micromanage everything, every day. Don't be obsessively pedantic. But an immense amount of benefit can be derived from the occasional review of where you are going, how you expect to get there, and importantly, making sure that your partner (or partners!) are on that path with you. At a minimum they need to be on a path that is somewhat parallel and close enough that you can reach out and hold their hand while you each continue on your journeys.
I wish you the best. I hope you find happiness in whatever form you might desire that is done with integrity and embraces the importance of kindness. I don't actually care if you choose to be Polyamorous or not. What I care is that you consider it, and accept it or reject it because it's the right decision for you.
Thank you for reading!
Introduction
Sometimes Monogamous people consider the possibility of seeing other people. Usually they cheat, if they are going to do it, statistically speaking, but occasionally they consider the bizarre notion that they might actually talk it over with their partner. The intent of this article is to provide a starting point for such an endeavor. If you are considering opening up your preexisting relationship, trying some form of ethical non-monogamy, this article will try to point out topics that should be discussed (at a minimum) before actually going out and trying such a silly thing.
There is no way that this can be answered exhaustively, as with so many other things in human relationships, a lot depends on the particulars of the relationship, and the couples' individual and shared experience, knowledge, beliefs, and values. I'm going to take a stab at hitting the highlights and dig in a little to each, perhaps providing a starting place for someone (perhaps YOU) to have some conversations with their significant other.
Surprising Interlude
When I write, I tend to be both verbose and repetitive. I will write a document that ends up being double-digit pages when I could've answered the specific question in half a page. I like the long version, whether I'm listening, speaking, or writing. I don't always like the long version when I'm reading.
Take Tolkien or Martin for instance. I love Middle Earth, but I can do without the repetitive and voluminous description of war and death that chokes the pages at time. I love the Ice and Fire novels, but George will wax on about a meal as if the poor man is starving. I've seen pictures. He's doing just fine on the caloric balance sheet. I don't know, maybe he's a frustrated chef. His plan has been to make the easy money as an author to finance his dream of opening up a Medieval-themed gourmet restaurant.
So, I'm going to cut to the chase and just answer the question. After the I provide the initial list, I will expound at length, allowing you, gentle reader, to choose whether to get on with what you want to do with the rest of your life or to explore some or all of the balance. This feels weird to me, but I think it might be useful for people who don't want to have to wade through four pages of Orc guts or a page and a half of roasted turnips smothered in rich, creamery butter with parsnips. Heck, I used to think “parsnip” was just another name for turnip before I read Martin.
Here it is:
1. Why do this at all?
2. What does success look like and what specifically will it give us that we don't have now?
3. How do we define a “failure” and how do we handle it when/if one happens?
4. How much information will we share with each other, how should it be presented, and when do we have those conversations?
5. How much information will we share with other people, how should it be presented, and when do we have those conversations?
6. What agreements around Fluid Bonding, Safer Sex Practices, and STI Testing will we start with?
7. How can we prevent couple privilege from poisoning our potential relationships?
8. When are we going to review/renegotiate all of this?
1. Why?
Why on earth would you ever open up a relationship? Only weird people do it. It's really unlikely to work. The enterprise is fraught with peril. Trying to manage and balance everything is untenable. I've never heard of it actually working out well. Relationships always end up breaking up when they head down this path. It's been too long since I've dated, I've forgotten how to even meet people. Did I mention the peril?
As you can see, these are objections not reason. People who focus on the negative may make fewer mistakes (a claim for which I would ask a citation be presented in support of were it actually made), but they also tend to be less happy, less fulfilled, and less successful than people who focus on the positive. If you want to tear something down, to rip it apart, then focusing on the negative will pay you dividends.
If, on the other hand, you want to be successful, to accomplish great things, then you are almost necessarily forced into looking at things through the lens of asking how something great can be done. Does that mean that we just ignore what the critic has said in their analysis of why our plan won't work? No! We need to be realistic, consider pitfalls, and incorporate that into our plan so that we end up succeeding.
The focus, however, needs to remain on how we are going to achieve our goals, not on why we might not. Acknowledging challenges is great, but only as part of a process whereby we find and implement solutions. People in sales refer to this as “overcoming objections”. Good sales people do not depend on forensic tricks or balderdash to do so. They genuinely match their customer with the right product for that customer's specific situation. That is our goal here.
So, let's try one more time, why on earth would anyone ever want to open up there relationship? Well, for some people it's natural to have some form of non-monogamy. To these people the idea of a restrictive model where you have one exclusive romantic partner has always struck them as foreign or artificial. I know because I fit into this category. From an early age I knew I was different from the cultural ideals and models that I saw represented around me. I “felt” normal, but I “knew” I must be weird. In my experience, having a Polyamorous orientation is not the most common way that people “turn out”. For many people, Polyamory is not an “orientation”, but rather, Polyamory is a choice.
Alright, if you're naturally monogamous, or perhaps you want to sidestep the entire conversation about what “natural” is, a good idea in my opinion, you need to give a person reasons for why exploring Polyamory has value. What do you get? Well, given that you're reading this in the first place, you must have some idea. Either that, or you're researching a paper for a class and happened to find this while searching for material. I can't find many reasons, only two really, so I'll get right to them.
Surprise, I'm gay!
Sometimes it takes a while for us to figure out our sexual orientation. Heck, I figured out I was bisexual at 25 and many people are married by that age. I was fairly slow to the party, but I've heard stories about people who came out at twice that age or even older. Sometimes people are less than honest (what?!) and have been engaging in a relationship that isn't entirely congruent with their identity. They might be doing so for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's more subtle than all of that.
What if you are bisexual, you know that, and you are looking to date someone. Okay, if you aren't Poly (or Open, or willing to cheat) how are you ever going to have everything you desire? The simple answer is that you can be bisexual & monogamous, and you can have a deeply fulfilling & rewarding long-term relationship with integrity. Just because you identify as bisexual, it doesn't necessarily mean that you MUST have sexual access to both genders to feel happy, content, and fulfilled. However, for some bisexuals, it DOES mean that. Some bisexual people DO feel as though they have to shut down a part of themselves in order to date any single individual.
Well, let's suppose that you are already in a relationship that you value and you don't want to just throw it all away. You have built things together, you love your partner, you might even have children or own property together. It doesn't really matter whether you were gay, or whether you are bi-curious. It doesn't really matter if you've been honest and something has changed, or whether you've been hiding in the closet your whole life (well, it might matter to the integrity of the relationship, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of what I'm discussing here). In fact, it doesn't matter if you are queer at all.
What?
The underlying principle being discussed here has nothing to do with gender identity. The underlying principle here is that a fundamental desire or need is not being met, but the relationship as a whole has value. That could be about gender identity. That could be about sexual appetite. That could be about emotional availability. That could be about anything that you get out of a romantic/sexual relationship.
What a person in this situation is saying is, “There is something I need, I'm not getting it, but I'm not willing to; A) Throw out the relationship; or B) Go without my needs being met.” This is an amazing combination of healthy self-esteem (avoiding the unhealthy pattern of self-denial, self-blame, shaming) and following through on commitments that have been made to a partner who you have a deep investment in. This can be due to growing apart in certain areas of your life. This can be due to health issues arising from illness or an accident. The specific reason isn't important. The key is that your answer is to refute the false dichotomy that you need to suck it up and deal with the way things are, or leave the relationship.
Scarcity vs. Abundance
Here is where we are going to dive into the deep end of the pool. There is an entirely different reason that many people choose Polyamory as a relationship model. It doesn't have to be an attempt at saving a relationship that is being threatened. In fact, this section gives a powerful argument for why a person might consider Polyamory regardless of whether or not they are currently in a relationship at all.
Many of the underpinnings of Poly philosophy are related to the concept of “abundance”. This is contrasted by the concept of “scarcity”. Often, these terms are used to describe material goods, especially money or natural resources. In this case the terms are referring to human resources.
The Scarcity Model of Relationships is prevalent throughout our society. The idea is that there is “One True Love” (often referred to simply as “The One”) out there, somewhere, and you must be ever vigilant in your never-ending search for your sole soul mate, the one individual in all of the world who will complete you as none other ever could. There are a lot of problems with this world view, but without looking too hard, one several should smack you in the face. Let me focus on just one objection.
There's a whole lot of “The Ones” out there for you.
You see, the truth is, finding people you like isn't rare unless there is a different problem. Let me pause for a moment, because while this other “problem” should also be fairly obvious, I would still like to spell it out because that's what I do. If you aren't a friendly person, if you aren't warm, accepting, engaging, pleasant, and open to making friendships and connections with other people, why in the holy hell do you think anyone should be that way to you?
There is a cliché about “reaping what you sew” which is absolutely valid. In sales it's called “mirroring”. People find it comfortable to have their own actions, words, postures, and expressions modeled back to them. There is not only a safe-feeling predictability in it, there is also a selection towards happiness and positive interactions. When you are nice to other people it is shocking how often they are nice back to you.
This power of reciprocity has been studied and it is remarkable. A common experiment that is suggested is this: smile and make gentle eye contact when passing people during the day. Don't stare them down. Don't give them a creepy “Jack Nicholson” leer. Just a smile, a bit more than a glance, and move on. People smile back. It's fun. It's so fun, in fact, that I've incorporated it into my life, and while I don't do it absolutely all the time (yet!), I find myself doing it more and more often because of the positive feelings it generates inside, seeing their reaction.
Take it further. If you develop the habits and traits that you admire, you will find that other people with those traits will not only recognize them in you, they will actively seek you out. It's bizarre. This is one of the great secrets to successful dating that is all too often ignored. Become a better you and you will attract a higher quantity and quality of potential partners. To clarify, I'm not talking about changing your principles or beliefs. I don't mean that you need to stop/start believing in God, you don't need to switch political parties, you don't need to change your values. This is about presentation. This is about changing what you believe, it's about how you communicate what you believe.
If you are being a sullen, insecure, grumpy person in your daily interactions, many people are not going to find you appealing. If on the other hand you strive towards positivity, happiness, success, and a sense of confidence, what you will find is that there isn't just “The One”, there are actually a bunch of them. The Scarcity Model is a lie. It's a lie that is told to make people feel comfortable with less. It is a lie that has persisted because it serves to comfort those who are “too insecure” to try, to grow, to break through the barriers of apathy and fear, and to consider the possibility of saying, “I want more and I can have more”.
On the other side is the Abundance Model. It says that in a world of very nearly 7 billion people, there aren't just “several” people who would be a match for you, there are thousands, perhaps millions. I believe that there is another very good reason that the Scarcity Model is so pervasive, so difficult to shrug off. We have a historical narrative that explains why this used to be true, but the world has changed.
This planet has shrunk drastically. It is a very small place today. We are able to connect with people on every continent in real time via phone or the internet. Not so long ago, this was not the case. This is another thing that we can take from the discipline of sales. It's a numbers game. If you grow up in a town of 10,000 people, and you could only meet people within that pool, then yes, I am willing to cede that finding your “One True Love” is going to be a challenge. I'm also willing to agree that some people are still in fairly limited settings. Not everyone lives in a metropolitan area with 1 million or more people. Not everyone has computers. Not everyone has phones.
However, if you are reading this, then you have most likely been introduced to the internet. There are a vast array of communication tools and media available for your enjoyment. If you are reading this, you can meet millions of people electronically. Distance is an issue for a relationship, but given the resources available today in the industrialized world, most people can pack up and move. Now, there is always a danger that this amazing 23 year old woman you met online is actually a 42 year old guy who lives in his parent's basement, but Skype and other online video chat tools have reduced the likelihood of this sort of deception being carried too far.
The truth is that there are so many wonderful, exciting, interesting people in the world who would make wonderful, exciting, and interesting partners for you that you will never be able to talk to them all, much less pursue relationships with anything but a tiny fraction of them. The world is one of abundance and the sooner you realize this statistical fact, the sooner you will begin to find them all around you.
This realization has a side-benefit. As you are open to the possibilities surrounding you every day, you will grow more confident, more open to others, and you will become happier. Did I mention that confidence is really, really attractive? This ties into what I said above about being a better you, adopting the traits that you admire and want in a partner. Switching frames, understanding these concepts actually propel you down the path of becoming that person. All it takes is a shift in thoughts, a realization, an acceptance, and you are headed toward something truly remarkable.
Okay, but why be Poly?
That is a very good question. Nothing I said in the section above necessarily points towards Poly. The idea of adopting this framework, the Abundance Model, is beneficial to Monogamous people and Polyamorous people alike. It does, however, beg a question. If finding one person who is wonderful and exciting and interesting is good, then might it not be better to have two such people in your life?
The Monogamous reader is likely to say, “Yeah, they're called friends.” Valid. There is nothing wrong with moving through life this way. It is perfectly reasonable to say, “One and no more”, when it comes to romantic partners. You can do that. I feel moved, however, to commit the cardinal sin of answering the question with a question.
“Why not?”
Ultimately, this is derived from the Abundance Model, not directly, but indirectly, intuitively. If you can have more, experience more, why wouldn't you? You might argue that if $1 benefits your life, it is likely that $2 would have even more value? This does not scale linearly. As with many economic questions there are issues surrounding opportunity costs, diminishing returns, and indirect or hidden costs as well. This is not a deductively persuasive logical argument that proves that Polyamory is superior. It isn't. It is an inductively persuasive argument that Polyamory should be considered. It seems worth investigating. Depending on those variables mentioned above regarding costs and expected returns, it becomes a valid option for a person to explore.
If you can have more, if you can experience more, if you can be more, why wouldn't you explore that? The answer isn't always “yes”. For some people Monogamy is the correct choice, no doubt. There is nothing wrong with that. But the idea that Monogamy is somehow “natural” or “superior” is lacking evidence. There is a bold “Citation Needed” label taped to that claim.
So, if either of these reasons sounds compelling, then you need to talk to your partner (assuming you have one, you are reading an article about opening up a relationship, after all). Integrity is essential to healthy relationships. If you're going to do this, please, please, please commit yourself to a high standard of integrity in everything you do. Any sort of relationship structure with multiple people (co-workers at a business, membership in a club or social group, Poly romantic connections) will blow up in an unholy hell of hot, burning fireworks that is in direct proportion to the amount of emotional energy invested in the situation. Less impact if someone is found out to be a cheater at the local bridge club (though not to the members who are heavily invested in group), considerably more if it's a coworker, and as you might expect, when it's someone you're sexual with, it can feel like your world is ending.
2. What do we want?
Wait, isn't this the same thing that you just talked about for like 5 pages? We want “more”, right? Or to get our needs met? Is this you being repetitive again? Well, maybe. I think there's more to it than just that. Let's see what happens if I keep typing for a while.
Step one, brainstorm. Each of you should throw ideas at the wall and see what sticks. The goal is to include all of the positives on a single list (the negative items go on a separate list, save them for later, see section 3). Include everything you've already discussed, assuming you have had some conversations already, and continue past that point in order to uncover the unspoken assumptions and desires, to get them “on the table” so that they can be considered as well. This investment in disclosure pays enormous dividends. There could be problems revealed that were completely unexpected or desires that each of you share that you didn't realize were unmet. Sometimes your partner says that they want something that you secretly wanted too, but thought was off the table.
As you have this conversation, it is important to keep options open (remember, you're brainstorming), be flexible, and to not firmly determine concepts about a person you haven't even met yet (more on that in section 7). However, that doesn't mean that you can't consider what it is you want, specifically. You just need to not be overly attached to the minutiae. It's a balance. Have a direction, yes. Even discuss specifics, but, keep an open mind about them.
Say, “I might like it if I found someone who would go hiking with me”, not, “I promise that I'll only date someone who is a hiker, because that would justify having a relationship with someone besides you.” If finding someone to go hiking with is really the key, don't date, join a meet-up. Hiking has nothing to do with a romantic relationship. You're using a criteria from one category (activity partners) and putting into another (romantic partners).
Note, I'm not saying that romantic partners shouldn't have shared activities with you, quite the opposite is true. What I'm saying is that any specific non-romantic, non-sexual activity is very unlikely to be a specific necessity (see my article, “Preferences, Necessities, and the question of Sufficiency” if it's published when you're reading this for more on these ideas) for having a romantic relationship. It can be a preference, it can be a supporting element, it can be deeply rewarding, but there are other outlets to getting that desire or need met, due to the nature of the activity.
Now, if you want to have someone to go hiking with, find a shady spot off a path, strip naked, and have sex outdoors... if that's been a life long fantasy... now we're talking! That's pretty specific, so it will take some looking (or you could ask me, I'm pretty sure I know some people who would be down with that), but at that point, “I really want to find a partner who likes hiking” starts to make sense.
If it's a one-off thing, something you want to check off of your bucket list, then maybe a partner who is not so interested in hiking as a rule would go out of their way to indulge you. If this is something you want to add to your weekly schedule, then it might be a valid criteria for selecting a romantic partner. Everything in this ballpark is context specific.
What are some common wants to discuss here? You could talk about desired structures. Do you want to both date one person? Do you want to date someone who is a different gender than your preexisting partner? Do you want to have a friendship with your metamour (partner of your partner) because of their importance in your partner's life, or do you want to have as little information as possible about that connection (DADT... “don't ask, don't tell”)? Do you want to be completely out in your life about Poly? Do you want to potentially move a new partner into the household? There really isn't a wrong answer here, though it's possible to find somethings that upon further consideration don't really fit, such as the “hiking” example above.
3. What don't we want?
This is the other side of the same coin and the source material will flow out of the same conversation. Honestly, I could've just made 2 & 3 the same section, but this will have some different concerns that should be handled carefully. The “wants” are not as threatening, unless you set heavy expectations around how a person “must” be. The “don't wants”, or more specifically the situations that might arise that would lead one or both of you to say, “if this happen, I'm pulling the plug on this situation”, need to be carefully examined.
Take out your list of negative statements or feelings, things you don't want, as we will be working with those now. Again, as stated in the first section, you don't want to dwell here, constant rumination is a pitfall, but you do need to have a thorough and detailed conversation about the downsides, be explicit about it, and then move forward with a shared understanding of what each other's expectations are.
Reviewing your list, discuss how serious each item is, how it would make you feel. Break each of your items into one of three categories; “I'd rather not” (“desire”, “want”, or “preference”, depending on the flavor of the topic); “that would be really challenging” (“need”); or “hell no, we stop if that happens” (“deal-breaker”). Feel free to vary your labels, I use the ones in parentheses. The critical thing is that you have an understanding of how each of you expect you might feel about various problems, so that you both have a good faith understanding of how things are for yourself and your partner. Without investing sufficient time and energy here, a conversation like what I transcribe below is exponentially more likely.
Person 1: “I told you I didn't want that, we have to end this and go back to being Monogamous.”
Person 2: “What?! You said you didn't like that idea for YOU, not for ME. Besides, it clearly wasn't a big deal to you, you barely mentioned it.”
Person 1: “You didn't listen. I told you that I didn't want that, I was clear. You just ignored what I said because you were chasing after the 'new and shiny'! You didn't consider me at all!”
You can see the accusations flying back and forth. Let's look at what their previous conversation actually entailed (Going back in time 7 months):
Person 2: “So, what about overnight visits? If one of us wants to spend the night at someone else's place, would we need to discuss that ahead of time? What if things were going really well and we just fell asleep?”
Person 1: “When I think of doing that, it feels disrespectful of you. I don't like the idea of that becoming our new standard. I don't want that.” (stated flatly, downplaying the reciprocity that is felt internally. “When I think of doing that... so I also don't want you to do that”, is left unstated.)
Person 2 “Okay, I respect that.” (thinking, that it's mostly about them, and that it is not a preference, but it would probably be okay, since the words “can't”, “don't”, “never”, or “forbid” weren't used.)
The problem with Person 1's statement above is a lack of full disclosure. They are withholding important data trying to not appear insecure. Person 2 dropped the ball with their final statement, in that they didn't use reflective listening. They really needed to listen, conceptualize, and then paraphrase. They are guilty of assuming here, and it's even a self-serving assumption, which makes it worse.
Here would've been a much better response:
Person 2: “So, it's not something you would likely do, but if I do it's not really a big deal. You just don't want it to happen all the time, right?”
Person 1: “No! That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not okay if it happens at all. I mean, I wouldn't dump you if it happens once, but it feels disrespectful. If you're seeing someone new, and then stop showing me respect, I'm going to feel a lot of jealousy. I'm not okay with that.”
As I mentioned above, being new to Poly, it's unrealistic that someone is going to know what many of these situations will actually feel like. An important caveat with everything discussed so far is that these conversations, the initial reasons, the positives, and the negatives, are all speculative. While your educated guesses will likely be accurate some of the time, it is almost certain that you will be surprised, from time to time, by your actual responses when you find yourself in these situations. Even experienced Poly people like myself are regularly surprised at how things that were previously major roadblocks are now no big deal. The reverse is true as well, things that I used to accept whole-heartedly are no longer palatable. Not only do these feelings have a high degree of contextual specificity, but things shift over time.
“Nothing endures but change.” - Heraclitus
4. Disclosure: Quantity, Quality, & Timing.
This usually starts with a conversation around physical intimacy, but it applies to much, much more. This is not simply limited to, “Let me know when you are going to have sex for the first time.” This can include emotional issues like expectations of what role a new person might play in their partner's life, to events or actions like overnight visits or shared activities.
Before I dive into the topic at hand, I want to take a brief detour to explain a common fallacy. Often people who are exploring the idea of Poly have a fundamental misunderstanding about something... well, more than one thing... but one that is all too common is this idea:
“Poly means that there is no such thing as 'cheating'.”
It boggles the mind. Just to cover the bases, let me include my definition of Polyamory here:
“A model of romantic relationships wherein everyone involved accepts that there is no expectation of exclusivity, and everyone knows about each other person involved and what the various relationships look like, according to a mutually negotiated level of disclosure. Honest, open communication, and acting with integrity are the hallmarks of this form of ethical non-monogamy.”
So, if you have an agreement with a partner and then break that agreement, what would you call that? Oh, yeah, that's cheating. Cheating doesn't necessarily mean “having sex with someone else”, it has a larger meaning. It means “breaking a serious relationship commitment”. Nearly everything that might be considered “cheating” in a Poly relationship would be acceptable, if you insert one magical formula.
Communication + Consent = No Cheating.
Pretty simple. This is where we get into the idea of disclosure. When do you disclose information, when do you need to seek consent, and what specific information should you share when doing so. The details on this can vary wildly, according to the people involved, their values, their comfort level with the topics, and your previous agreements and understandings. Let me explain what I mean.
Quantity & Quality
When people are down on the end of the Poly-Style spectrum that is labeled “Free Agent” or lower, they often don't want much information, it's part of the definition of why they have that label. The types of things they do want to hear about tend to be in a more narrow range. They probably have fewer agreements about what they want or need to know about relationships outside of their specific dyad.
“You're going to the beach with your other boyfriend? Not on our weekend? Fine, that's cool. That's one of your favorite things, I hope you have a blast with that.”
“You had your first sleep-over with your new girlfriend? Congrats. I know that's always a big deal for you. I hope it went well. Do you need to talk about it?”
The emphasis is on their direct partner not their metamour or the connection between their partner and their metamour. If they are interested at all, it is focused on how their partner felt about the experience. They are really focused on the dyad, and don't get much reward from the idea of their partner's other connections. In extreme cases, even this much disclosure is a problem. Some people have a policy of DADT. They don't want to even acknowledge that there are other partners, though it's understood that they exist in some vague, abstract sense.
A “Community” or “Family” person might have responses like this:
“You're going to the beach with your other boyfriend? Nice! Hey, you know, my new sweetie and I were talking about going to the coast too, maybe we could coordinate trips. Keep me in the loop about what the two of you would prefer. Make sure he's really comfortable with the idea, I don't want to butt in.”
“How did the sleep over go? Did you get a good night's sleep? I know that's something you've struggled with in the past. Do you think she felt like it went well? We should invite her over for hot tubbing again, it was fun last time.”
People in this range are genuinely curious and feel connected somewhat to the other relationships. They often ask questions about their metamours and will frequently consider their metamour's comfort in discussions about proposed plans. Also, notice that in the second example the speaker didn't need to be told about the sleep over, they KNEW it was going to happen. It was on their Google calendar. They are aware of what's going on, it's important to them. Their metamour isn't stealing their partner away from them, it's like their partner went out and found a new potential friend in their metamour. They are gaining from the other connections by assigning importance to them and being peripherally (or sometimes intimately) involved themselves. Note the congruence of this position to the Abundance model.
Whatever your style of Poly, it is important to have an understanding of how much detail you will want about what is going on within your partner, about their internal process, as well as what is going on with their other connections, and even with your metamours. Some people love the whole enchilada (and I mean the whole enchilada, including pictures) while others want considerably less. It's not enough to say, “Oh, just give me a general picture”, that is almost worthless. Give examples.
“Tell me when you have important milestones so I can celebrate them with you. First kiss. When you start using labels like 'girlfriend' or certainly 'partner'. I want to know before you have sex the first time. Things like that are important, but the day to day stuff, I don't really care about.”
“If you're dating someone else, I really don't want to know anything. I want to understand that you love and respect me, and that you are being safe. I want you to seek your personal happiness, but the less I know about it, the easier everything will be for me.”
“I want to hear all the stories. If they are shy or don't want you to spill I'll try to deal with it, but I want to hear everything. I'm really excited by the idea that you are building new connections, having other relationships, and part of why I want to explore Poly is because it will be thrilling to vicariously experience your triumphs by hearing about your experience. Share everything you feel comfortable sharing.”
There isn't a “wrong” way to do this, as long as you avoid deception, in my opinion. I withhold my right to change my opinion on that, someday, but for now I think that as long as you are negotiating this and being completely honest and open about the process of negotiation, whatever outcome you arrive at is okay for you, even though the same choices might not work for someone else.
Timing
This may be less intuitive than the previous section, and it's a much smaller subject, however I've found it to be a powerful nuance, one that makes the difference between cheating and not cheating. When do you tell someone about something?
This also overlaps with a concept previously touched upon, the difference between notifying or seeking permission. That may also not be intuitive. I'll explain all of this, I promise. If you do see where this is going, congrats! I'll try to make it quick.
Using sex as an example, it's the most common instance of this for me personally, when do I need to be told that sex is on the menu for my partner and another connection? Do I need advance notice? How much? A week? A day? An hour? Do I need to be told before hand at all? What if it's okay that things can happen, and then I'm notified soon after the fact? How soon? An hour? A day? A week?
This idea of notice married with consent is the difference between cheating and not cheating. Some people don't care. They don't need to be notified of the possibility of their partner being sexual with metamours. These are the Open/Free Agent types, typically.
To clarify, I'm not talking about reports of every time that someone is sexual, I'm talking about a change in status with a partner where they are going from “we're seeing each other” to “sex might happen soon” to “we had sex”. Those sorts of notifications are important to many Poly people. This can be complicated by many factors. What if your metamour is NOT comfortable with the idea of your partner sharing information about their private business (Free Agent)? What if your partner is interested in non-relationship based sexual behavior (Casual or Recreational sex)? What if you and your partner differ on what “counts” as sex (ala Bill Clinton)?
I have different rules for each of these situations. First, I let my partners know that I'm not okay with them keeping secrets about who they are sexual with. I need to know about it before the fact whenever possible, but I don't need to know the tawdry/delicious details. There is an escape clause that “IF” something sexual happens unexpectedly, it's not a deal-breaker, but I do want to hear about that promptly. I can allow for unexpected chemistry in the flow of a connection sneaking up on a person, and I don't want them to quash that if something delightful happens.
That means that if they have a potential partner who is not comfortable with the idea of me knowing when they reach a stage in their relationship where they are being sexual, then my partner has a choice. They can tell my potential metamour to deal with it, they can tell me to deal with it, or they can opt to not date that person. Luckily for me, my partners see eye to eye with me on this issue, so it's a part of their partner selection criteria. That's because this topic is a part of my partner selection criteria. See how a lot of problems are alleviated by picking the right partner?
Second, I don't need to know who my partner sleeps with, in a recreational setting, or what exactly they do, but I do ask for certain assurances. I want to know that they are going out and that it's possible that something will happen. I want to know that they will take care of themselves, physically and emotionally, including the idea of setting up a “safe call” if they are not meeting in a public environment. Finally, afterwards, I want a check-in. It's usually very minor.
“Hey, how'd it go last night?”
“Great!”
“Did anything exciting happen?” (This is one of my code phrases for, “Did you have sex”. I like it because it is a more open question. It encourages them to relate a broader range of potentially exciting activities.)
“Ooh! There was this one little...”.
Third, the idea of what is “sex”, is not really a “Timing” issue, so much as it's a “Quality” issue. I tend to have a broad, cognitive-relativistic definition of what is considered sex. The closest I can come to putting it into words would be, “If you think you're having sex, you're having sex.” This allows for potential shenanigans with people manufacturing false claims of what they perceived in the moment, but I select against those people pretty stringently. Integrity, openness, honesty, start there, and these corner-case examples go away. Remember, partner selection alleviates a lot of these problems.
Last point here, I want to pick up the piece from before about the difference between notification and seeking permission. Some people bristle at the idea of being told that they are expected to let their partner know “before” sex happens. They can feel as though they are asking permission for something that they fundamentally don't feel they need to ask permission for. This is a “Timing” issue that creeps up on people. I have seen passive dissent on this point that was really surprising. People “forget” to mention it and when called on it, they confess that they really hate this part.
If you run into one of these people, good luck. You can discuss this at length, trying to point out the difference between notification and permission. You can give up your request for a “heads up” of likely changes. If you can work out a way to get them to opt in and try doing it your way, they will see that you always say, “Yes” (not actually, you will say, “Thank you for letting me know, I hope you have a great night”, unless you actually ARE trapping them into seeking permission). Hopefully after a while they see that you are really not seeking to control their access to sex outside the relationship and believe you.
If you are playing a game around this topic, stop it! Find your underlying need, why do you need them to ask your permission, and seek a way to get that need met overtly instead of covertly. Remember, honesty, openness, integrity. Live it.
5. To be out, or not to be out, that is the question.
This one won't require a lot of writing, here, but it will require a lot of consideration and discussion when you are opening up a relationship. There are real consequences to doing so. If you are a parent, be aware that some people have had Polyamory cited in court as a reason to revoke custody of their children. If you are self-employed, be aware that clients may choose to do business with someone else, certain that your “immoral lifestyle” is a sign of a “weak character”. If you are not self-employed, be aware that “Polyamorous” is not a protected minority status.
Okay, is that all? Not necessarily. Who are you friends with? Would they all be comfortable with your decision? Would you family? Your parents? Your children? This is not easy. For many people, reading this, I'm fairly certain that a close approximation of your position at the moment is, “Hell no, I'm not going to be out as Polyamorous!” That's not an entirely unjustified position, however, I would argue, and will, in fact, that there are some benefits to being out.
First, there is only one way that Polyamory is going to gain widespread acceptance, and that is to have people be out and to have those people model healthy relationship skills. Polyamory is in it's “15 minutes of fame” phase right now. It's on TV, on the web, and in movies. It's actually hip and edgy. There are drawbacks to that, but so be it. If you aren't out, then it's going to be more challenging for everyone else.
Second, you are more likely to find what you are looking for if more people know that you are Poly. You might be working with people who are Poly, or are open to the idea, or who have never considered it and might be open to it, if only they ever encountered the concept. You could be a role model and find a potential partner all at the same time. Hurray for multitasking!
Third, you are going to have a lot more harmony in your relationships and spend a lot less effort on certain aspects of relationship maintenance if you are out. There are none of the issues of keeping stories straight, trying to remember who knows what, or those delightful occasions when someone accidentally outs you, either in person, when your worlds collide (hint: they will) or on social media (far more likely in today's world). This happens all the time.
Finally, you will experience huge benefits in your internal world. The anxiety that exists when you are hiding something, the fear, it is pervasive and insidious. It is not crushing or overwhelming, at least not for most people, rather it is ever lurking under the surface, eroding stability. It leaks out in unexpected ways at unpredictable times. This is relative. Some people are more sensitive to it's effects than others. If you grew up “normal”, if you've never been the one who has been “in the closet”, or dealt with the effects of societal privilege, then you can't understand it's effects on a visceral level.
I have been out my entire life, so of course I am going to tell you to be out. I want to moderate my message. Don't do what I'm saying. Talk to someone you know and trust who has been in the closet at some point in their life (probably the most common example would be a friend who identifies somewhere in the GLBT spectrum, but there are others) and then talk to someone who has dealt with societal privilege (racial, gender, etc) and ask them about the how that has effected them. You'll have to find someone you are fairly close to in order to get honest input. Even with close friends, some of these topics are so deeply personal that they might not give you an extensive picture.
Consider the following options:
1) Be out everywhere.
2) Be out everywhere, except professionally.
3) Be out to friends, but not professionally or to family.
4) Be out to a close ring of confidants, but nobody else.
5) Be out to absolutely nobody. (Wait, how do we meet people again?)
Your answer likely falls somewhere in the middle three. If you join me at the top, congrats! The important piece is that it's very, very difficult to not be on the same page, on this point, as your partner. Unless you lead quite separate lives, you are going to need to see eye to eye on this one.
6. Cooties!!!
This one is a regular conversation point in Poly circles, and a contentious one. It bumps up against two diametrically opposed world views that are mirrored in our (American) political discourse. The ideas of individual rights and responsibilities (the Right) and communal benefits and obligations (the Left). Each side is valuable, but the one that is most important to you personally, the tie-breaker that decides your actions, often determines which side of various political and economic discussions you will end up supporting.
In Poly, the idea that you have more than one sexual partner means that you are going to increase the potential risk for transmission of disease. If, for example, you have a Monogamous dyad, and they are both free from STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection, the new term for “STD”) and both are faithful to each other, then there is a strong likelihood that they will continue to remain free from infection. When you add another person to the mix, now the circle of trust is expanded, regardless of whether you are going to all be fluid bonded, but if you are, then it is magnified. That raises a significant question. When is it worth the risk?
On one hand there is a fundamental sense of unfairness that there is an inherent limit to “our” relationship, because of an agreement in “your” relationship. This is unavoidable. The only way to truly erase this issue is to not be sexual. If you want to take one step into the pond, dip your toe in as it were, you could say that you will enforce a strict standard of safer sex practices in all of your sexual activity, with every partner you may ever have. There is still risk there. But often, when you are part of a monogamous dyad, and you are looking to potentially open your relationship up, the two of you are already fluid bonded.
Given that, what do you do? Tell any new partner that they are necessarily in a disadvantaged position and they have to accept a latex barrier for penetrative sex? For oral sex? Dental dams suck and condoms reduce sensitivity. A Free Agent Poly person is far less likely to accept such restrictions. They see their relationship as being dyadic. They might be willing to get tested and share the results with their partner, but the idea of unilaterally accepting such a restriction is going to seem inherently less fair. They are on “the Right”, using my connection to political ideology from above.
On “the Left” we have the more community-minded individuals who are concerned about everyone's health and welfare. They would be more willing to accept limitations for the good of the group, but still, let's imagine that you are asking a preexisting partner to STOP being fluid bonded for the sake of exploring open relationships. I can't imagine many situations where that will go over well. Seems like that would qualify as a “deal-breaker” for many if not most people given the frequent emotional connection associated with being fluid bonded.
So, looking at the situation, it seems that there is going to be a default “privilege” here that we are not going to get away from. That is my take on it. I accept it when dating someone new and I expect it to be respected in turn. When someone begins dating me, I describe my fluid bonded status, and let them know that I have a certain level of safer sex expectations with any additional partners (aka them). Likewise, when I date someone new, and they give me a similar message, I am both accepting and supportive of their stance, despite any inconvenience I may be faced with personally.
This is, I believe, the only “universal exception” that I recognize in the “Couple Privilege” ballpark. There is room to consider the idea of moving towards a place where someone is accepted into fluid bonded status, but that is never assumed to be a goal. It needs to be discussed at length.
In case you hadn't figured this out by now, STI testing is a regular part of Poly life. This might be a revelation, and perhaps I should have led off with this, but if you are going to have multiple relationships, and they have multiple relationships, etc., you are going to need to make this a routine part of your life. Much more so if any of your connections engage in recreational sex. Latex is not a magical protection against “cooties”. It is an effective barrier for some purposes, working much of the time, but it is not infallible, nor is it effective against certain infections. If you are going to do this, please take the time to educate yourself on this topic. Unless you are a health care professional or an educator in that field, I almost guarantee that part of what you “know” is actually not true. There is a lot more misinformation in circulation than there is good science.
This is an investment in yourself and your partners that you can't skimp on. You need to do the research. You need to get tested. Do it.
7. Couple Privilege.
I've already alluded to this, so let me keep this brief. If you want a fuller picture of what this is all about, you can go read my “Unicorn Hunter” article. It is a core challenge, perhaps the #1 issue that causes problems with any couple who are brand new to Poly (though it is not limited to those who are “new”), opening up their relationship.
In the briefest possible terms, the idea is that people in a preexisting relationship build rules and limitations on a new partner so that they are inherently disadvantaged. There are many examples of this, both blatant and not so obvious. It has many subtle manifestations, but there are plenty that are not subtle at all. Veto is not subtle. There is nothing subtle about the idea that I can change my mind about your partner at any time, even after having previously agreed to your relationship with them, after the two of you have grown quite close, I can use my veto and expect you to cut off all contact.
That's a drastic example. It doesn't need to be that extreme to show you how horrible Couple Privilege is, but that is perhaps the iconic example. A more subtle form of Couple Privilege, I refer to as the “box”, where a preexisting couple sets expectations, makes plans, and describes a role for a future partner when they haven't even met anyone yet. The build a “box” that the new person is supposed to fit into, happily, even though they had no say in what it would look like. This is a very realistic and very common example of Couple Privilege.
So, I've just described a process of figuring out what you want, setting expectations, and deciding if you should try this. That's what this entire article IS. Now I'm telling you that it's bad? No. Not entirely. Here is the distinction. You need to figure out what you want, you need to identify where the edges are, and then you need to have an open mind about the whole thing. You should NOT start identifying what your partner will look like, be like, or act like. Anytime you and your partner set an expectation or make a “rule”, you are creating something that will very possibly be a source of discomfort or actual emotional pain for the person that one of you will eventually be dating. Every preexisting rule or restriction is an external limitation on the new person, by definition, because they weren't there to have a say in it.
How do you limit the impact of Couple Privilege with a new partner? I'm so glad you asked.
1) Don't formulate things as rules, or if you do so, minimize the frequency. I've already said that I tend to regard the topic of fluid bonding as a universal exception to this. Outside of that, there aren't many others I feel warm and fuzzy about.
2) Don't set expectations about what the new person will be like. Decide what you want or need. Discuss what you are more comfortable with or less comfortable with, certainly, but don't describe what this person needs to be or has to have, outside of some character traits or skill sets. What do I mean? I find it entirely reasonable to say that someone you are going to date needs to have strong communications skills and solid integrity. Those are character traits and skills that are useful in any relationship. Avoid things like, “I'm looking for a submissive switch who will be my pet, since you aren't kinky at all, but will also like cleaning our house, and will run errands, and who will do our shopping, and who will...”. That's not about relationship skills, that's about unpaid domestic labor.
Likewise avoid, “Well, I will only see her once per week, and it needs to be Monday evenings or Thursday evenings, but on Thursdays she would only get 2 hours, because it can't cut into our time for the meeting. Also, no matter what, she will never be a Primary, she will always be a Secondary. Oh, and she has to ask permission if she wants to come over, even though we'll give her a key, because this is your house, and you wouldn't feel right if she just let herself in.”
3) Remember those notes you took for section 2 and 3? When you start dating, if you've think you've found a keeper, if you intend to continue dating them and see where this is going, take those notes out and share them. Disclosure. Transparency. Communication. Honestly. Say, “Hey, here is where we are coming from. Here is what we are afraid of. Here is what we are hoping for. Here are agreements that we've talked about. You're pretty cool. If we are going to keep dating, how do you feel about all of this? What input would you have? Tell me/us what you think.”
The “me/us” is because depending on the scenario it would make sense to have this conversation either 1:1 or all together. It's usually best to do it 1:1, as facing both people usually feels like someone is being ganged up on, but for some people it's better to all be together. If the new partner is really confident and strong, or if you are all dating each other, then all three of you should sit down and have the talk. Be careful to be very clear that it who will be participating. Ambushing people is really bad. Setting expectations is critical.
4) Pretend for a moment that the new person is actually the preexisting person. As a thought experiment, think about every agreement you have (sans fluid bonding) and ask yourself, “Does that make sense?” You will have issues because some of the agreements will be idiosyncratic to the personalities involved, but doing this should point out red flags. If you think, “Oh my God, that's backwards. That's totally not fair”, bingo, you've found an issue for discussion. If it's not fair to your preexisting partner, odds are it's not fair to your new partner.
8. That was fun, let's do it all again!
What?
Okay, so you have decided to try this Polyamory thing, open up your relationship, meet other people, whatever. You've sat down several times, over the course of weeks, maybe even months, and really looked at the idea. You've talked about everything I've listed here and maybe more. What do you mean, “do it all again”?
Remember the part above where I talked about how this is all guesswork? You won't actually know how it will feel until you get there. Well, here is a truth to Poly, which really has nothing to do with Poly. It's a truth about life. In fact, I mentioned it already above. I even included a handy-dandy quote from a dead Greek guy.
Everything changes.
This degree of negotiating relationship is a never ending process. You don't do this once. You will do it with each new relationship. You will do it time and time again within the relationships you have. You will do it when there are significant changes. Note, I said “significant” not large. What is or is not “significant”, in this context, is not always obvious or expected.
Welcome to Poly. You will be more conscious of your agreements and commitments than you probably ever have been. It's not necessarily true. Like I said a few paragraphs up, this isn't actually about Polyamory. This is necessitated when you are Poly, but there are Monogamous people who have these skills and this kind of focus as well.
I should say, this is necessary if you want to have functional Poly relationships. I have seen examples of people who do NOT do these sorts of things. There are people who do not act with integrity, do not have honest communications, do not negotiate for what they want, and I have seen the fruits of their labors. They are the “Drama Llamas”. These are people who spread discord throughout their relationship networks, spitting drama and chaos on everyone who comes within reach. I really don't like drama in my relationships.
So, one of the topics you should decide is when are you going to come back together and review this. Some people schedule it regularly, once a year, twice a year, quarterly. Some people do it whenever a new interest enters the picture. Some people don't do it regularly at all. It can be sporadic. Some people use the “if it ain't broke, don't fix it” guideline. If things are going well, great. When there is a problem, then let's deal with the problem and also use that as an impetus to review some of the other agreements and expectations that had been previously set. That approach can allow the wheels to veer drastically off track over time before the problem is noticed, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
There isn't one way that this should look. It will serve you well to incorporate these ideas into some sort of plan and try to enact it, even if it's not perfect. If you are new to all of this, I would lean toward being a bit more firm in my advice. Given that this article is aimed at very new people, let me take a swing at a guideline.
Have the conversations. Come to understandings. Make agreements. Then, when one of you start dating a person, review it. You don't need to start from scratch, but keep your notes and when you get to that point, pull them out and look them over. Does it still sound like a good idea. Talk it out.
So far so good. I would review again when the other person starts a relationship. I would review again after either of you have been in a relationship at the 3-month, 6-month and 12-month marks as well. Yep, that's a lot. That's my advice. Do with it what you will. It's partially arbitrary, but not entirely. Relationships follow patterns and go through cycles. At the 3-month mark you should be able to pull your head out of your ass just long enough to come up for air and have a productive conversation. What do I mean? NRE. New Relationship Energy.
You can Google it if you like. I might write about it someday, but I don't have any current plans to. Others have already written good things on it. Read some of it. It's called “the Pink Fluffy Stupids” in my circle. The idea is when you start a new relationship you have a period of limerence, excitement and focus wherein your judgment is often compromised. If NRE is steering you off course, catch it now.
At the 6-month mark routines have been established and new patterns are stabilizing. Another good time to review. If you have been drifting slowly, to one side or the other, it should be noticeable at this point. Small things, not worth bringing up at the time, ought to be recognizable. Encourage your partner to bring up the minor issues, ticky-tack stuff. Tell them you really want to hear anything they have. You might laugh, but this “minor issue” today will cause a divorce 6 and a half years from now. Talk about it now. Find a solution now. Stop it from festering.
At the 12-month mark everything could be different. This one is more arbitrary than the other two. It sounded good, so I made it up. If things are still going well after a year, maybe Polyamory will be worth pursuing. If things aren't going well, change them. Go back to being Monogamous. Stay Poly, but fix the parts that are broken. Skip Poly and go explore Swinging. Ditch your partners entirely and join a monastery. The choices are yours, but unless you take these periodic breaks to reevaluate what you are doing and where you are going, they aren't choices, it's just passive acceptance of what life is shoving in your face.
Don't micromanage everything, every day. Don't be obsessively pedantic. But an immense amount of benefit can be derived from the occasional review of where you are going, how you expect to get there, and importantly, making sure that your partner (or partners!) are on that path with you. At a minimum they need to be on a path that is somewhat parallel and close enough that you can reach out and hold their hand while you each continue on your journeys.
I wish you the best. I hope you find happiness in whatever form you might desire that is done with integrity and embraces the importance of kindness. I don't actually care if you choose to be Polyamorous or not. What I care is that you consider it, and accept it or reject it because it's the right decision for you.
Thank you for reading!