Some poly, some kink, some other stuff ...

[SilverBass]

And this. Maybe Racey was a bit universal in her statements, but I think her point that if you're unhappy, and you choose to remain in the situation that makes you unhappy, you have chosen that is true. I would probably add to that though that you might have chosen unhappiness in that area in order to gain something else in another area (which is really whatever everyone has already said). The problem I have is when people THEN choose to NOT make the best of what they've got, to NOT find a way to be happy with it.

.

That tells me more about the person than the relationship. I would find this trait common through other parts of his or her life as well. After all, life is what YOU make it to be.

 

[SilverBass]

*

Are relationships supposed to last until death? If not, why do people try to force them to? Let a relationship be. If we allowed our relationships to be organic then maybe there wouldn't be so many 'unhappy' marriages.

Deciding to stick with an 'unhappy marriage' (whether that be just in part, such as sexless, or all) I believe has a lot to do with the ideals of monogamy. Now *in general...

Monogamists enter a relationship until death - aka traditional marriage. Breaking up before death results in 'failure' and they don't want to fail. It's almost as if the failure of a marriage is the worst possible thing in the world.

As a polyamorous person, the idea of not being able to live without another person is unfathomable to me. Marital codependency is unattractive and undermines the human experience. Everything in this world can be achieved without marriage (except a marriage...lol), even the deepest, strongest, most awe-inspiring love.

So, why is marriage, and sticking it out to the end, so important to monogamists? My guess: Marriage has become an achievement. A bragging right. It's a romantic ideal that we are told by society is the ultimate. But, I don't understand why you should be compelled to hold to a commitment you made in your twenties for the rest of your life, especially when the relationship isn't fulfilling anymore. But that's the problem -
a marriage is not just a relationship to a monogamist, becomes their whole life. One of the reasons I believe monogamist married couples stay in an 'unhappy' marriage is because their lives are too entwined - family, finances, resources, security, safety - that it becomes a logical decision to suffer through the relationship to keep everything else in their lives intact. To me, there lies the failures.

But, I find polyamourists think differently. Again *in general, they enter and keep a relationship until the relationship has ended, not life. They have this omniscient perspective that not everything is meant to last forever so they enjoy it, nurture it, learn from it while they can. Rather than thinking of themselves as part of a couple living the same life, they think of themselves as individuals sharing their life (or part thereof). A lot of monogamist married couples think they are doing the later, but in actuality they are not.

I'd like to point out... There is no evidence to suggest that greater happiness will be achieved the longer a marriage stands. It's just a romanic idea. "Happily Ever After".


*In general - yes, this means from my personal experience of living and watching the world. Just thought I'd clarify for the anti-generalists...lol.

Have you ever understood the concept of "family". To some people keeping a family together overcomes ALL other obstacles. Also keep in mind that even in some polyamorist relationships, there may be some relationships within that that are considered life long while others are more temporary or until things fade.

And no one is compelled to do anything in a relationship. They can come or go at will, with repercussions on each side. Someone who is unhappy in a relationship but chooses to stay in order to keep the family intact is making just as rational and valid a decision for themselves as the person is who wants to leave an unhappy sexless marriage. We all have our own reasons for what we do, and to make judgements about what makes sense for others or to call someone else's choices a failure if they stick it out through the tough or unhappy times just shows a severe lack of empathy and life experience.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

Monogamy means having only one partner at a time. It does not necessarily mean forever. Marriage is generally viewed as something that is meant to last forever...you found someone you can see building a future with, sharing the rest of your life with. It doesn't always work out that way. When it doesnt, it's not a 'failure'...things change, people change, wants and needs change...that's just life. I guess a successful marriage can be considered an 'accomplishment' since it takes a lot of work, but it isn't really a 'goal' you set to achieve. It's a wish, hope, dream, desire that you would like to have fulfilled.

It's not hugely different than entering a business partnership in that you both invest what you can, combine your resourses, and work together toward a common theme. If that partnership ends you divide the assets left after losses and expenses. There may be a negative impact on one or both parties, and you go your separate ways, amicably or not. Of course, you can avoid this by never partnering up with someone, but depending on your ambitions, it's sometimes more lucrative to take that risk.

Granted, in a marriage there are more emotional aspects to consider and the sharing of nondivisible assets such as children, family or friends. Like it or not, that can have an impact on how much effort/worth it is to stay together, or how much contact remains after the partnership is disolved.

It's all choices...this versus that. You choose the path that suits you and hope for success. (Also, no one should enter into a partnership with the expectation of it not working out...that's ridiculous. And if you do enter a partnership with the idea of it being 'only temporary' that should be disclosed and prepared for at the onset.)

 

[pplwatching]

.....

 

[pplwatching]

.....

 

[numeniusa]

...Monogamists enter a relationship until death - aka traditional marriage...

I disagree with this. As others have said, monogamists choose to be exclusive in their emotional relationships, there is nothing in any definitions I have seen of that which implies 'mating for life'.

And there's nothing in a civil marriage which implies it's until death either. If you leave aside religious instructions on marriage, which, as an atheist, I do, then a civil marriage in my country means only that you must declare that you are legally free to marry this person, and that you wish to marry this person. Everyone who enters a marriage knows that it can be dissolved, should the relationship reach an end.

I agree that it should not be considered a failure that a relationship ends. And I would say that holds whether it's a marriage or not, I'm not convinced that marriage vs emotionally committed relationship is a useful distinction to draw in this discussion.

P.S. This is such an interesting thread. I am enjoying your tale very much, Kim. These diversions are interesting too, and to be commended for the calm and non-judgemental contributions.

 

[SilverBass]

This is just splitting hairs, but in the strictest sense monogamy is one partner for life. Many of us who are monogamous, myself and my wife included practice serial monogamy where we have one exclusive relationship at a time. The latter matches your definition, while the former may be closer to RW's. It's not much of a distinction, except perhaps to a strict monogamist.

I think that comes down to initial intent, rather than the actual outcome. I mean the initial intent of monogamy is for life, but we all know that sometimes this does not happen, and that we all have an escape clause or can make changes if need be. So the end result really is one partner at a time, despite the fact that with each partner the original intent was to stay together for life.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

That tells me more about the person than the relationship. I would find this trait common through other parts of his or her life as well. After all, life is what YOU make it to be.

Yes, but marriages and relationships are made out of people. I think that everything I've said about these things has been about the person, not the relationship. However, you are right in that I've probably encountered this particular trope on Lit more than elsewhere, which is obviously a self-selecting sample, but also a context in which you don't really know much about the person other than what they choose to say on the boards ... and the nature of the site means that sex is the thing people are most likely to be talking about, whether in a positive or negative way. That's really where my initial thinking about the subject started - here one gets a relatively significant proportion from PMs from guys who are unhappy in their marriage and want to tell you all about it. I don't have a problem with people who feel there's some lack in their marriage and seeking to address that through a relationship with someone else (whatever that 'relationship' looks like) ... but if I'm not that 'someone else', I very much don't want to know about that problem. And that probably says more about me than anyone else - I'm a 'flxer', so if someone comes to me with a problem, I try to work out a way to fix it. Most of these guys are interested in having the problem fixed - they just want to ... well, a more generous person would say 'vent', I tend to think 'whinge'. I understand that, for all the reasons we've discussed, people choose to stay in marriage for a raft of different reasons, and that they probably need some means of dealing with that, and often that's about 'talking it through' ... but I'm just not the right person for that job, and eventually they get pissed with me because I just keep offering solutions instead of going 'oh - that's no good'. (Also, I find it very difficult how a lot of them really blame their wives for the situation, and don't seem to have a lot of love for them - but of course, I'm getting a particular version of the story.)

 

[KimGordon67]

'Family' doesn't require children. I see family as being about a sharing of resources, and working together as a unit towards making the life of the collective better - the swimming pool metaphor above is a good one. For us, that level of merging didn't happen until we did have a child, but that doesn't mean they're a necessity.

 

[KimGordon67]

Derailment is fine, if it's a thoughtful conversation and no one's nasty.

I do wonder if my attitude to marriage is partly about national context. Here we don't have things like alimony, and anything that goes into the swimming pool just gets equally shared should the marriage dissolve - there's no ability to suggest that one person added more dye, so should get more of the total at the end. If there are children, and you don't have an arrangement that involves 50/50 care of the child, the ex-spouse with the lesser amount of care has to pay child support to the 'resident parent', and that can vary on the basis of respective incomes, but that's the only ongoing financial aspect.

Everyone is making good points, although I'm afraid our dear Ms. Gordon's thread is getting derailed.



I once heard someone describe marital assets as a swimming pool. If you were to pour a cup of red dyed water into a swimming pool and then later come back and try to get exactly that cup of red dyed water back, without taking any of the other water you couldn't do it. When a spouse takes a day off from work to take care of a sick child or spouse, that lost income is a cup of dye in the pool. Maternal leave may cost a woman (or man) potential future income. That's another cup in the pool. When someone pays the mortgage while the other pays the car payment, they each pour a cup into the pool. When it comes time to figure how to fairly distribute assets, there is no way to get each cup back from the pool. It's all mixed together with no way to separate it. So even when couples have separate finances, pay separate bills, and do everything that they can to keep their finances separate (for any reason) they still have to sort it all out. This is one of the reasons that we have community property statutes.

In my wife's case, she is better educated (and better looking) than I am. She has a master's degree while I am trying to get my first at 52 years old. We mutually decided that it would benefit our children to have a stay at home parent, and she gave up her future earning potential to take on that role. It can also be argued that by being the stay at home spouse, she enabled me to have a higher earning potential. All of which is what makes divorces so messy. it also lights a fire under both of our backsides to focus on keeping the marriage healthy and happy. An individual who views relationships as temporary and disposable may not have that incentive to work on things when problems crop up. I can't say if they are any more or less happy than I am, only that I love being married and working through problems with my wife.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

I do think there is a general perception that a marriage that ends before death has 'failed' - acceptance of the idea that marriage might be temporary is relatively recent, and still far from complete. A fair few of my friends who have separated did talk about feeling like they'd 'failed' because they couldn't make the marriage work, or because their spouses weren't prepared to put that work in - it's been quite difficult for them to get to the point of thinking about as change, rather than failure. That's been especially difficult when their exes have repartnered, because then they think 'Well, he did want a relationship - just not with ME', and the 'failure' monster reappears.
I do think that's changing, but it's a slow process (as such social change should be, really).

Monogamy means having only one partner at a time. It does not necessarily mean forever. Marriage is generally viewed as something that is meant to last forever...you found someone you can see building a future with, sharing the rest of your life with. It doesn't always work out that way. When it doesnt, it's not a 'failure'...things change, people change, wants and needs change...that's just life. I guess a successful marriage can be considered an 'accomplishment' since it takes a lot of work, but it isn't really a 'goal' you set to achieve. It's a wish, hope, dream, desire that you would like to have fulfilled.

It's not hugely different than entering a business partnership in that you both invest what you can, combine your resourses, and work together toward a common theme. If that partnership ends you divide the assets left after losses and expenses. There may be a negative impact on one or both parties, and you go your separate ways, amicably or not. Of course, you can avoid this by never partnering up with someone, but depending on your ambitions, it's sometimes more lucrative to take that risk.

Granted, in a marriage there are more emotional aspects to consider and the sharing of nondivisible assets such as children, family or friends. Like it or not, that can have an impact on how much effort/worth it is to stay together, or how much contact remains after the partnership is disolved.

It's all choices...this versus that. You choose the path that suits you and hope for success. (Also, no one should enter into a partnership with the expectation of it not working out...that's ridiculous. And if you do enter a partnership with the idea of it being 'only temporary' that should be disclosed and prepared for at the onset.)

 

[KimGordon67]

We were very careful when we got married (also a non-religious affair) to not promise anything in our vows to each other that we weren't confident we could maintain. So no said anything about 'until death do us part' or 'forsaking all others'. I promised to love him forever, and I'm utterly confident that, unless he turns out to be a secret serial killer or a Trump supporter, I can do that.

And thanks - the whole thing has developed an unexpected life of its own - even my own contributions are turning into something I wasn't originally intending. But I'm enjoying it, and it's giving me lots to think about, which is always good.

I disagree with this. As others have said, monogamists choose to be exclusive in their emotional relationships, there is nothing in any definitions I have seen of that which implies 'mating for life'.

And there's nothing in a civil marriage which implies it's until death either. If you leave aside religious instructions on marriage, which, as an atheist, I do, then a civil marriage in my country means only that you must declare that you are legally free to marry this person, and that you wish to marry this person. Everyone who enters a marriage knows that it can be dissolved, should the relationship reach an end.

I agree that it should not be considered a failure that a relationship ends. And I would say that holds whether it's a marriage or not, I'm not convinced that marriage vs emotionally committed relationship is a useful distinction to draw in this discussion.

P.S. This is such an interesting thread. I am enjoying your tale very much, Kim. These diversions are interesting too, and to be commended for the calm and non-judgemental contributions.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

Derailment is fine, if it's a thoughtful conversation and no one's nasty.

I do wonder if my attitude to marriage is partly about national context. Here we don't have things like alimony, and anything that goes into the swimming pool just gets equally shared should the marriage dissolve - there's no ability to suggest that one person added more dye, so should get more of the total at the end. If there are children, and you don't have an arrangement that involves 50/50 care of the child, the ex-spouse with the lesser amount of care has to pay child support to the 'resident parent', and that can vary on the basis of respective incomes, but that's the only ongoing financial aspect.

I don't think your view would change regardless of where you lived. You are who you are, and many others, not in your location, feel the same way. The financial aspect may be a burden on some, but I think ultimately it comes down to what you regard as necessary to be 'happy' with your life.

 

[KimGordon67]

Hmmm ... not entirely. I think it's important to remember that our attitudes to these things are shaped by our socialisation, and we will be differently socialised in different cultural contexts, and those cultural contexts will be, in part, shaped by the social possibilities of the location, which include the legal situation.
A lot of what we're talking about here is also about how we've been socialised to understand marriage and relationships. Our perceptions regarding gender will also have an impact here - e.g. the story told about regarding who stayed at home to care for the children would seem to me at first glance to have a significant gender element to it, especially given that PW's wife earnt more than him and still took up the role as primary carer. (I'm not saying that was necessarily the case, and quite possibly in this instance it wasn't, but again, research would suggest that in the majority of cases where that happens, it's because people perceive mothers as 'better' parents.)

I have no idea, however, how socialisation relates to the monogamous/poly equation ... I'm still trying to work that out.

I don't think your view would change regardless of where you lived. You are who you are, and many others, not in your location, feel the same way. The financial aspect may be a burden on some, but I think ultimately it comes down to what you regard as necessary to be 'happy' with your life.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

A lot of what we're talking about here is also about how we've been socialised to understand marriage and relationships. Research suggests that the children of divorced parents have a higher acceptance of divorce as a viable option - I am the child of divorced parents (and a particularly acrimonious divorce, that I think taught me a lot about how I wanted to run my own relationships).
I have no idea, however, how socialisation relates to the monogamous/poly equation ... I'm still trying to work that out.

Research 'suggests' a lot of things as theories. I'm not an expert on sociology, but my parents were also divorced when I was very young. That pushed me in the opposite direction. I might never get married but if I did...I would want to be as certain as possible that it had a good chance of lasting...only want to do it once! I'm also very monogamous in all of my relationships (not in the 'mating for life' kind of way...that's a zoology term really), but in the way that I only share myself and my life with one special person at a time, with the hope that it could be lasting.

I do see how societal norms or the way you were raised influences how you view things, shapes us into who we are...so who knows...under different circumstances we could all be different people.

 

[KimGordon67]

Societal norms absolutely shape how we do things. We could never have had a conversation that considered the potential for polyamory within a marriage, nor indeed suggested that marriages weren't ordained by (a) god or for life 100 years ago.

Research 'suggests' a lot of things as theories. I'm not an expert on sociology, but my parents were also divorced when I was very young. That pushed me in the opposite direction. I might never get married but if I did...I would want to be as certain as possible that it had a good chance of lasting...only want to do it once! I'm also very monogamous in all of my relationships (not in the 'mating for life' kind of way...that's a zoology term really), but in the way that I only share myself and my life with one special person at a time, with the hope that it could be lasting.

I do see how societal norms or the way you were raised influences how you view things, shapes us into who we are...so who knows...under different circumstances we could all be different people.

 

[SilverBass]

Kim, I just finished reading your story so far and I have really enjoyed it. This post is really what I thought would be my first contribution to the thread, however I got sidetracked a little while back and being impulsive as I sometimes am, I couldn't help but to pop off right then and there with a sidetracked comment.

You do have a very entertaining, descriptive and personal writing style, so it has been easy to be absorbed into your life as you tell it. It also of course brings back flashbacks in my own life, while different from yours in the way I strayed from the confines of my marriage, still overlapped in enough ways that I could relate entirely.

Really it seems almost as a coming of age story to me. Or almost equivalent to someone learning to date again, and then venturing out to see what happens, and then experiencing much that is to offer, the good, bad, strange, sexy and all things thought provoking. As I, you have been in a long term marriage where at least in the areas of sex, things were slowing down and/or not that exciting anymore. You were able to split off a small piece of your life and run it parallel along with the larger piece of your life, in order to explore this other "online dating" side that was so new to you. Granted that new piece transferred over and the benefit was that it made a positive difference in your marriage as well.

So here you are, and here was I, with this new side of us ready to explore. Exciting! It can be stressful and confusing at times because really it takes some work and thought to learn how to coordinate this new part of life into the larger picture. Then there are also the questions we may ask ourselves about what is cheating, what would my spouse think of this, what if he/she finds out, or what if he/she notices a change in me? So I realize it takes a while to figure this all out and to establish a rhythm in order to alleviate these worries. Then there is the way we question ourselves, and sometimes being surprised at how well we handle ourselves, sometimes being surprised that we are not feeling guilt and can completely rationalize why what we are doing is OK, especially after seeing the positive results this new life has brought to our "old" life.

So then there are the actual experiences and all of your stories with these men. Your story has almost inspired me to create a thread and do the same thing (oh the stories I could tell) though I'm not sure I have the initiative that you do, or the craftsmanship in storytelling to make my story compelling enough to garner much interest.

I have enjoyed reading about your experiences, your mistakes, your triumphs and really mostly about the excitement and passion that these relationships have brought to you. I said earlier that based on your writing I thought you were awesome, and I mean that in the way that how you have come across is very likable, intelligent and interesting. But yes, I know that just like all of us you are just another regular person, though I hear you make a great chocolate chip cookie!

Really, your story can be looked at as being inspirational in ways that you may not have even expected. Here you have something missing in life and in order to fill the void you took some risks and found an unconventional way of filling in that gap. For others that gap may be someone with the desire to travel who just doesn't see a way to indulge under his/her present situation, but when there is a will and a way and an open mind, along with the enthusiasm to persist, maybe it can be worked out. Or maybe it is the desire to find that passion in sports someone used to have, or in music or in teaching. What I'm trying to say is that for a minute you can even forget the actual topic and situation you have been writing about, and you can really apply your stories to many different facets of life. In a sense it is almost like finding yourself again, an awakening. Really there is universal appeal. I look forward to hearing about your journey for as long as you wish to continue telling it.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[RacyWilde]

There are probably as many different definitions of what marriage is as there are marriages, because each one is unique to the people who have invested themselves into it....

Haha, I'm guessing all marriages start off with the people believing/hoping they will be together for life. I'd say that's pretty much un-unique. The root form of marriage is un-unique too - two people dedicating themselves to each other (for life).

And, a lot of people (if not all) don't tell the truth of things so it is really hard to determine if 'what works' is actually working. For example, the old misconception that the average couple had sex on average three times a week. This has been detrimental to the understanding of reality. And such, there is no difference to the idea of 'happiness' in a marriage or what works. So, 'enlightenment' should be selective.

Haha! But yes, I think I need to agree to disagree on a lot of what you've mentioned here. All what you've said exists without marriage at all, and without codependency.

 

[RacyWilde]

Have you ever understood the concept of "family". To some people keeping a family together overcomes ALL other obstacles. Also keep in mind that even in some polyamorist relationships, there may be some relationships within that that are considered life long while others are more temporary or until things fade.

And no one is compelled to do anything in a relationship. They can come or go at will, with repercussions on each side. Someone who is unhappy in a relationship but chooses to stay in order to keep the family intact is making just as rational and valid a decision for themselves as the person is who wants to leave an unhappy sexless marriage. We all have our own reasons for what we do, and to make judgements about what makes sense for others or to call someone else's choices a failure if they stick it out through the tough or unhappy times just shows a severe lack of empathy and life experience.

Yes, I am well aware of the dynamics of polyamorous relationships as I am living polyamorous.

And, yes, I have always understood the concept of 'family' but I don't believe that keeping a family together despite emotional unhealthiness and unhappiness (of one partner, both, and everyone - as these things are toxic) is a good thing. Have you ever lived with an unhappy person? OMG. If someone is unhappy in a relationship, it affects the whole family. The rest of the family will know about unhappiness, they will feel it. You can't conceal it. To think otherwise is naive. Not to mention such emotional strain leads to health problems and early death..etc. Sacrificing your unhappy self to keep a family may be a noble cause, but not all noble causes are right or good.

No, I certainly don't empathise with people who decide to live unhappily because their unhappiness will effect their family and their partner negatively. This could even be considered as selfish. What good has ever come from unhappiness?

 

[RacyWilde]

Monogamy means having only one partner at a time. It does not necessarily mean forever. Marriage is generally viewed as something that is meant to last forever...you found someone you can see building a future with, sharing the rest of your life with. It doesn't always work out that way. When it doesnt, it's not a 'failure'...things change, people change, wants and needs change...that's just life. I guess a successful marriage can be considered an 'accomplishment' since it takes a lot of work, but it isn't really a 'goal' you set to achieve. It's a wish, hope, dream, desire that you would like to have fulfilled.

It's not hugely different than entering a business partnership in that you both invest what you can, combine your resourses, and work together toward a common theme. If that partnership ends you divide the assets left after losses and expenses. There may be a negative impact on one or both parties, and you go your separate ways, amicably or not. Of course, you can avoid this by never partnering up with someone, but depending on your ambitions, it's sometimes more lucrative to take that risk.

Granted, in a marriage there are more emotional aspects to consider and the sharing of nondivisible assets such as children, family or friends. Like it or not, that can have an impact on how much effort/worth it is to stay together, or how much contact remains after the partnership is disolved.

It's all choices...this versus that. You choose the path that suits you and hope for success. (Also, no one should enter into a partnership with the expectation of it not working out...that's ridiculous. And if you do enter a partnership with the idea of it being 'only temporary' that should be disclosed and prepared for at the onset.)

Hence the particular 'monogamist married couples'... - I knew this discussion could become about definitions...lol.

Hence the quotation marks in 'failure'...lol - meaning it's not true but when people go through divorce they often feel like failures. (read any divorce blog)

I guess the point is - choosing the path that suits you isn't necessarily the best, right or good choice, but that is easy to rationalise...lol.

 

[RacyWilde]

*

Gosh Kim, your story is great for discussion. Though, I am very conscious of keeping your thread clear so readers can have a streamline experience. I just wish we could have side threads for each topic that comes up.

Thanks

 

[KimGordon67]

*

Gosh Kim, your story is great for discussion. Though, I am very conscious of keeping your thread clear so readers can have a streamline experience. I just wish we could have side threads for each topic that comes up.

Thanks

Lol - I'm sure anyone's whose interested enough will manage. The randomness and frequent time lags in my own posts are probably the main culprits. I don't mind though - a healthy discussion among a smaller number of genuinely interested people is probably of more value than the 'likes' of those wanting madturbation inspiration - not that I'm averse to providing that as well, although I suspect I'm not doing a very good job there.