(Maybe) turning poly, from a dominant point of view?

[SimonBrooke]

So, the situation: I've met a woman whom I like and desire, and the attraction is mutual. She has a lover to whom she is committed, but who doesn't satisfy her fully, partly because he's vanilla. That's OK, as far as she's concerned, because he knew she was poly before they became lovers.

I'm not - or at least, I never have been. I'm mid fifties, so not perhaps as adaptable as I might once have been; I tend to be both possessive and protective of my lovers. I'm also, like most people, occasionally emotionally needy - averagely so, not unusually so.

Now, of course, I'm getting ahead of myself here. One never knows, no matter how well one gets on with someone, whether one will find fireworks in the sack. It may be that we'll fuck and then say 'well that was fun, see you around.' But I'm not really into casual; I'd like to believe that, if we fuck, there's some future in it; and if I can't see any possible future then notwithstanding the attraction I'd rather not fuck.

So - and this is really a question for other dominants - what makes polyamory possible? Is it possible at all for someone with a dominant streak to happily share a submissive with another man? What framework, or arrangements, or conditions, or rituals would make it workable?

 

[BiBunny]

Honestly...if you're thinking about doing it just to be with this woman, don't. You're just setting yourself and probably everyone else involved up for heartache.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've had outside lovers try to get possessive of me-- so has Mr. Omega.

Dude, it is NOT going to happen. Understand that she's made a commitment -- and it is not to you. Sure, you can try to break them apart. You might succeed in creating a lot of unhappiness between them. Depending on how long they've been doing this though, you'll lose, and she'll have to do some repair work. If they've been doing this long enough, you won't last more than a minute because almost no lover is worth fucking up your primary for.

Remember-- she picked him. If you have any respect for her, you have to respect her choices.

 

[liv21]

I haven't had much experience here (yet), but I figure I could add my two cents.
I wouldn't outright say it couldn't work, but that being said, for it to work would depend on a lot of things. There are plenty of people in relationships outside of commitment, and it's possible to be discreet. I don't believe in a "discreet" relationship though. Discreet is code for secret that's never a good thing.

For a relationship to work between you, equal responsibility goes to her to make it happen. Being polyamorous is different than being a cheater, and the difference is her SO's involvement/approval of having other lovers. She should have a discussion with him about this. If he disapproves, for you to go after her is irresponsible and risky for the both of you.

If he gives her the go-ahead, even more responsibility is going to be on you. For whatever reason, she is committed to this other man, and it is your duty to respect that. If you don't have enough self-control to keep it to casual sex, you or she could get very badly hurt. Mind you--lacking this type of self-control is not a cause for blame. You either have it or you don't, and it's not your fault, but this is the difference between who can share a lover and who cannot.

Bottom line, I'd advise against it. From your post, it seems she is looking for casual sex, and you are not. Beginning any sort of relationship like this is probably not worth the trouble.

I do think it's possible for a dominant to share a submissive, but it depends on a lot of variables--both/all three people's personalities must be suitable to that type of relationship (easier said than done), everyone needs to have the same expectations and agreements, and open communication is necessary between all.

This is just my understanding of basic polyamory. My SO and I have looked into it ourselves.

 

[ecstaticsub]

I know you said this question was for other dominants however I am in a position similar to your female friend. The big difference is that my Dominant is also happily married.

The situation as you describe it may work out just fine for her, but I doubt if it will for you. My Dominant is ok with the limits my marriage presents because he has his own primary relationship. You will have to be ok with always being 2nd in her life. Can you do that?

 

[JMohegan]

So - and this is really a question for other dominants - what makes polyamory possible? Is it possible at all for someone with a dominant streak to happily share a submissive with another man? What framework, or arrangements, or conditions, or rituals would make it workable?

I'm about as far from poly as a person can get. So my comments here are based on observation of others.

It seems to work best when the D also has another lover to whom he/she is firmly committed.

ETA, after reading the post by ES - Firmly committed, and happily so. That's exactly what I'm talking about here.

 

[JMohegan]

Simon - when you describe yourself as "dominant," what does that mean? Are you into bedroom control only, or non-bedroom as well?

Also - in terms of physical D/s encounters (as opposed to internet or phone), would this woman be one of your first, the latest in a long line, or something in between?

 

[00Syd]

When I first got with Seb, I was the mono half in a mono/poly relationship. I had never tried to be in ant type of open relationship, and I was scared, and I didn't know if we would be able to make it work. It pained me to see him with other people, there was so much emotional pain, I cried a lot, I was so afraid of the whole situation. But despite that, I wanted to stick with it, and I wanted to make it work. I wanted to try living in a poly relationship and I wanted it to be happy and fulfilling. A lot of people told me that that would be impossible, since I was so clearly mono. But after months of thinking, and talking, and analyzing, and agonizing, and then, finally, trying, thing started to work. I "got it." So I don't know if you even want to look into trying to be polly (I mean, it's hard!!), but if you do, I would be happy to talk to you about my experiences and thoughts on the matter.

And I don't think that that particular experience, of a previously mono person trying to be poly, will change too much from D to s.

 

[kevinkox]

Well, you could be like I was in that situation: A monogamous male who is involved with a free citizen who makes her own choices.

 

[JMohegan]

And I don't think that that particular experience, of a previously mono person trying to be poly, will change too much from D to s.

There are a lot of D-types who call themselves poly, but go on to say they're into D-s-s but would never under any circumstances allow D-s-D.

Control issues vary with the D, but control issues usually do matter.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Simon's situation would be D-s-v... Or V? Do PYLs view vanilla "rivals" as competing PYLs? Simon certainly is seeing this as "Sharing a sub" as opposed to "Sharing a lover."

 

[JMohegan]

Simon's situation would be D-s-v... Or V? Do PYLs view vanilla "rivals" as competing PYLs? Simon certainly is seeing this as "Sharing a sub" as opposed to "Sharing a lover."

I was giving a general response to Syd's claim that the switch to poly would be the same for a D and an s. But you're right, Simon's would be D-s-V, from my perspective at least.

This is why I'm asking Simon about his perspective on dominance. My control issues don't extend to every single aspect of a partner's life, but they do go far outside the bedroom.

Commitment turns the v to a V, in my head. "Hey, you promised...." is a powerful control mechanism, and "We agreed that...." may put a lot of restrictions on an outside D.

 

[00Syd]

There are a lot of D-types who call themselves poly, but go on to say they're into D-s-s but would never under any circumstances allow D-s-D.

Control issues vary with the D, but control issues usually do matter.

Of course everyone will have their own problems, hang ups, and reservations when making the switch from mono to poly, and their d/s orientation can certainly play into that. But the issues being dealt with will generally be the same, or along very similar lines (jealousy, insecurity, posessiveness, protectiveness, fear, etc), and the skills that are learned to deal with those things aren't going to be so wildely different. For example, Simon brought up his feeling posessive and protective, two things we normaly associate with the D, but I dealt with those things, too. I felt wildely posessive, and very frequently felt protective of the person who I felt was MY person, who I cared about. The feelings that can get dredged up in this sort of situation have no prefrence for either orientation.

 

[chy_girl]

I agree with ecstaticsub. And I'm going to chime in as well from the perspective of a third, despite the lack of D status...

You will be the third, whether her current SO is vanilla or not. And as a single third, though submissive and committed to both partners in the primary relationship, I cannot stress enough the need to look at what being a third means going into it and discuss it with her - ad nauseum if need be.

The primary relationship takes priority, not us. As a third, we are the "disposable" or "expendable" ones (for lack of a better word) in the overall relationship. That can be a hard thing to swallow... especially when you're going home to an empty bed while your partner is curling up next to someone else.

Just a thought for consideration.

I hope you find what you need.

 

[rida]

I happen to be the middle s in the following situation: D- s -- D -s. Hubby is the D in the marriage but I also have an external D. And the external D is happily married to his s, but has me as an external s. It is not always easy, not for me as the s, nor for him as the external D. There are a lot of compromises that have to be reached and accepted.

In your case, you'd be the external D without a primary. Would you be free to pursue a primary? Would you want it? Or would you want to be your s's primary?

Also, would you meet the primary vanilla partner, or will you be a total separate entity from their primary relationship?

There are many ways that could work, and even more ways that would not.

Depending on your personality, you know whether for yourself is better to have everything laid out before hand or are a type that goes with the flow and adjust when needs arises.

Meeting someone we feel chemistry with is always wonderful! And there are many different ways to be in each other's life. Hope you find a way that will satisfy all people involved.

 

[praefect]

Alright. I'm living in a polyandrous triad. Two guys, one girl. Not a setup I wanted to get involved in at any point in my life. It just sort of happend to work out that way.

But that is an extremely long and complicated story, so, I'll spare you.

She is my s type. He sort of is, but not really. If I had to give him a lable, it would be more along sensationalist, painslut and kinkster. His submission is something he plays. It's not something he feels.

Empathy is what makes it work, I think. When either one of them is happy, I am happy. When either one of them is not, neither am I, and I make us work out what is going on. You can't have secrets from one another. Anything he tells me, he knows, I won't keep it from her, and vica versa. Unless it's a birthday surprise, or something. They're my children in a way. One that I love, one that I now consider a great friend. I make them sit down and talk things out, which they haven't done in a decade before. When something goes off topic in an argument, I become the referee, and get them back onto what matters.


I have never felt like that their relationship with each other in any way intrudes on mine with them. It's other things that give me headaches. Most of all, having to hide the nature of our relationship.

I don't really do rituals with him. Since he doesn't internalize anything they serve no purpose and to me have no value. It is a lot of hard work a lot of taking, opening up, sharing, until you built up a stable foundation of trust. It can be very emotionally draining. I think if you don't have an empathic mindset I don't know if a set up like this could work.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

I think I'd agree with the others that this, as described, is not a poly situation.

Well, not what I imagine a poly sitch to be anyway. Isn't poly an equal relationship between all 3 (or more) partners? Equal as in, everyone has the same at stake, gives the same, regardless of their D/s orientation?

This sounds more like to me that you want to get involved with someone who has/will have an open relationship. That's essentially where I'm at, only he's the D, and I'm the s.

And yes, you *will* come second. If you can accept that you'll be a part of her life, only, the smaller part, then yeah, go for it. If you can't, and think you should have more, you're going to cause trouble to her primary relationship, and cause yourself a whole lot of grief.

 

[SimonBrooke]

I've had outside lovers try to get possessive of me-- so has Mr. Omega.

Dude, it is NOT going to happen. Understand that she's made a commitment -- and it is not to you. Sure, you can try to break them apart. You might succeed in creating a lot of unhappiness between them. Depending on how long they've been doing this though, you'll lose, and she'll have to do some repair work. If they've been doing this long enough, you won't last more than a minute because almost no lover is worth fucking up your primary for.

Remember-- she picked him. If you have any respect for her, you have to respect her choices.

I do, Stella. I'm quite aware that if I go for this I'm going to get a minor share of something very good that someone else has a major share in. I'm not seeking to replace him, or to shake up or interfere with their relationship.

The question I'm asking is, is it possible to me to find a way of being comfortable as this woman's second lover? If what you're saying is 'no, it isn't', then that's a fair answer (and may be true). But do me the credit of understanding that I do respect her choices.

 

[Etoile]

If you aren't poly, you can't force yourself to be.

 

[the captians wench]

I agree with ecstaticsub. And I'm going to chime in as well from the perspective of a third, despite the lack of D status...

You will be the third, whether her current SO is vanilla or not. And as a single third, though submissive and committed to both partners in the primary relationship, I cannot stress enough the need to look at what being a third means going into it and discuss it with her - ad nauseum if need be.

The primary relationship takes priority, not us. As a third, we are the "disposable" or "expendable" ones (for lack of a better word) in the overall relationship. That can be a hard thing to swallow... especially when you're going home to an empty bed while your partner is curling up next to someone else.
Just a thought for consideration.

I hope you find what you need.

This.

Except when I was involved with a couple, I didn't see myself as committed to the wife, I related as second to her. It can work. It's hard work, and it can be very painful being second (or third). I always knew and respected that if I was in anyway a strugle for their relationship, I would be cut out, and was to a large degree. Now insted of a family pet, I'm a family friend.

Of course this also came about because Jounar decided he couldn't live with sharing me either. It was hard for him to know that I was getting attention from some one else when he couldn't provide it.

It really is a lot to think about

 

[SimonBrooke]

Apologies for replying to everyone at once, you've all posted such a lot of interesting stuff since I was last here.

I haven't had much experience here (yet), but I figure I could add my two cents.
I wouldn't outright say it couldn't work, but that being said, for it to work would depend on a lot of things. There are plenty of people in relationships outside of commitment, and it's possible to be discreet. I don't believe in a "discreet" relationship though. Discreet is code for secret that's never a good thing.

Yes, I'm not going to go sneaking behind someone's back. Discreet isn't an issue here. Being considerate and not rubbing one another's noses in things may be. One factor is geography - he lives three hundred miles away, she has her main base there but is close to me regularly. So any meeting between me and him would be pre-arranged and not accidental.

Simon - when you describe yourself as "dominant," what does that mean? Are you into bedroom control only, or non-bedroom as well?

Is a very good question. I like to think of my control as quite playful and not deeply serious; but this may be self-delusion. Sexual control (I'm not keen on sex in bedrooms, particularly - sex is for where you feel like it, not for one special place) is certainly at the core of it, but not only in overtly sexual situations.

Also - in terms of physical D/s encounters (as opposed to internet or phone), would this woman be one of your first, the latest in a long line, or something in between?

I've never done poly, but I've never not done dominant. Not as a big master/slave thing, but as the one who takes the lead most of the time generally and particularly in sex; the one who does the tying, not the one tied; the one who does the hitting, not the one hit; with one particular partner who got off on it, the one who does the exposing, not the one exposed.

Simon's situation would be D-s-v... Or V? Do PYLs view vanilla "rivals" as competing PYLs? Simon certainly is seeing this as "Sharing a sub" as opposed to "Sharing a lover."

Geography and time, if nothing else, will mean that I am not her 'main' partner. She will, inevitably, be with him more than she's with me. So it's really more like d-S-V, if you'll excuse the joke. But no, I don't see it as sharing a sub. I do see it as sharing a lover - who may choose to act as a sub when with me, but is a very capable and independent person in her own right. In the context of her other relationship, she is not in the least 'a sub'.

The degree to which I will feel her other as a 'rival' is very much the question I'm asking myself, and seeking your views on. I know he exists (and he already knows that she is seriously considering me), but we haven't met.

The primary relationship takes priority, not us. As a third, we are the "disposable" or "expendable" ones.

Yes, that's so; and that is the bit I'm finding challenging.

 

[JMohegan]

Is a very good question. I like to think of my control as quite playful and not deeply serious; but this may be self-delusion. Sexual control (I'm not keen on sex in bedrooms, particularly - sex is for where you feel like it, not for one special place) is certainly at the core of it, but not only in overtly sexual situations.

I've never done poly, but I've never not done dominant. Not as a big master/slave thing, but as the one who takes the lead most of the time generally and particularly in sex; the one who does the tying, not the one tied; the one who does the hitting, not the one hit; with one particular partner who got off on it, the one who does the exposing, not the one exposed.

Sexual control is what I meant with the shorthand reference to bedroom control. Your term fits better, so I'll use that.

It seems to me that potential conflicts would be limited by the distance thing, and by the relatively mild nature of your control issues. The other guy isn't your rival for time & attention on Saturday night; she's either in town, or she's not. And you don't have an expectation or need to control what happens outside of sexual encounters, so you won't be continually frustrated by your inability to do so on that score.

When she's out of town, will you be dating outside that relationship?

In the context of her other relationship, she is not in the least 'a sub'.

This is helpful, I think. My observation of people in general is that they need to feel special to their lovers somehow. As if their lover gets something from them that they get nowhere else.

 

[graceanne]

I'd say that poly relationships are complicated enough when you're wired that way. Adding it in, when you're not wired that way, would not be a good idea. You could definately try, but I'd say odds are it won't work.

 

[SimonBrooke]

When she's out of town, will you be dating outside that relationship?

I don't know. Not initially, and not without her knowledge.

Having an intensely sexual lover who is only available at intervals seems to me to have benefits - you get good sex when you get it, sex never gets to be routine and dull, and in between times you have the house to yourself .

If it turned out that she did satisfy my need for sexual expression and we developed some level of real emotional bond, then I can see myself not needing another lover. I'm really quite a solitary person. I like to spend a lot of time alone, and I like silence.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't know. Not initially, and not without her knowledge.

Having an intensely sexual lover who is only available at intervals seems to me to have benefits - you get good sex when you get it, sex never gets to be routine and dull, and in between times you have the house to yourself .

If it turned out that she did satisfy my need for sexual expression and we developed some level of real emotional bond, then I can see myself not needing another lover. I'm really quite a solitary person. I like to spend a lot of time alone, and I like silence.

Well there you go! Sure sounds like it's worth giving a try.