Follow TV Tropes
... What other such misunderstandings are there, that you can list off the top of your head? I find those kinds of reactions rather hard to anticipate, but it's important that I begin to get the rhythm of them...
"I think we've grown separately in different directions." Often bald truth. Better than saying, "Well, we managed to fuck up, big time, didn't we?" -_- Although, that one can work, too. Depending on the setting.
So you're not debating the ethics of polyamory for purly intellectual reasons but some thing you're seriously considering trying out for yourself?
Well handle that's different kettle of fish. Did you have someone or someones in particular you were considering going poly with?
That question is on the intrusive side, and rather irrelevant and as well, Joey.
"It's not you, it's me." Common wisdom has it that this really means "It's you, dipshit. I don't like you any more." My experience is that it kind of means something not entirely like that, but a more accurate interpretation is "Look, something about this relationship is making me unhappy. It may be something you do/did/like/want/expect that I don't like; or it may be something that I did/do/want/expect/like that is missing. But I really don't want to think about it too hard and I certainly don't want to try to explain."
I think the people involve is relevant to his questions on Polamory Mandy. Of course don't feel need to discuss them Handle.
edited 11th Sep '13 8:58:05 PM by joeyjojo
WRONG THREAD (I think)
edited 12th Sep '13 7:26:58 AM by TheHandle
Woo... the Stealth Insult is strong with this one. <feels the burn>
I meant, most of the latter part of that "letter" is telling Jane between the lines that she needs to get more experienced and just all around better at the whole love game. 'Cuz she sucks at it — ergo, she should just forget the whole bit at the beginning about John sharing any of the blame (mainly about the skipped dinner, by the look of it), because it's her fault, really, that the whole relationship has gone south.
And, hey — sorry for the short notice that I never mentioned this before: but, hey... what can I do? You just suck. Sorry I bothered, toots. <_<
edited 12th Sep '13 7:26:36 AM by Euodiachloris
EDIT: This stuff seems more relevant to the Ethical Sluttery thread, which is not quite the same thing as poly.
edited 12th Sep '13 7:27:20 AM by TheHandle
"Pick up more conventional tips . . ." sounds like she was too wild and out there for John, and instead of him admitting he's not wild enough for her, he's telling her she needs to tone it down. Don't know if that's what the Stealth Insult comment was aimed at, but it's one I picked up on.
If one's partner doesn't like sharing one, but is willing to accept it, should one actually pursue others while keeping the relationship, or just forget about being poly at the same time as remaining with the partner?
I don't see a lot of difference between poly- and mono- relationships so far as what can destroy them.
As previously mentioned in this thread, the things that make a poly relationship successful would also make a mono relationship successful - honesty, communication, trust etc.
Likewise the things that would destroy a mono relationship can also destroy a poly one - including "cheating". As Maddy showed in her list, just because the ground rules of a poly relationship allow multiple partners it doesn't mean that "rule-breaking" can't occur.
Yes but you also need more of it if you are to have a successful poly relationship. Unlike a poly relationship a monogamous couples can still have a successful and happy relationship without that much communication Trust and honesty.
edited 1st Oct '13 8:59:54 AM by joeyjojo
Define successful... My parents didn't have those. They got the job done as parents, but... let's just say it was a sloppy, haphazard job, to put it mildly.
"Successful" - all involved happy with the relationship for the most part, endures for a long time.
If there's no trust and honesty, I'm pretty sure one or both are going to be miserable most of the time and it would not be a "successful" relationship.
All relationships have ups and downs, but when it's more downs than ups because they don't/can't trust each other or communicate, it's not a particularly good relationship.
edited 1st Oct '13 12:53:05 PM by Wolf1066
Obviously see CHT is important to any relationship but It requires a lot more it with polyamory. This isn't to do with social stigma more the result of bringing more than two people into the relationship. Yes that includes children.
Um not like that.
I really don't think it's right to say that about a person's relationship. Many couples and may even some ploys don't Trust or communicate but still find happiness with each other, and honestly sometimes that's enough.
They are happy together when they don't trust or understand each other? How?!
As one whose first marriage was two years of abject misery due to being constantly told that I wasn't trusted because her previous partners had screwed around on her, I'm also interested in how someone can be happy when there's no trust or understanding in the relationship.
If they don't expect it, they don't miss it. Or their expectation is considerably lower than yours or mine would be. It's that easy. They'd consider it "happy and successful".
I wouldn't but I don't have a horse in that race, so whether I think it's happy or successful is utterly irrelevant.
edited 1st Oct '13 5:01:20 PM by Madrugada
I'd rather not speak from personal experience. I just know couples who very plainly don't trust or comumecate with each other but are still together.
Are they happy? I don't know, but they must be getting something out of it.
edited 1st Oct '13 5:06:21 PM by joeyjojo
I won't even try to speak for them or speculate. I just know that if I can't trust or I'm not trusted, then the relationship is doomed. It's doomed a number of monogamous/monamorous relationships I've been in and it's doomed a few of the polyamorous relationships I've been in.
Communication issues have destroyed more than their share, too. Lack of self-honesty have been factors in others.
I don't disagree that polyamory requires a lot of CHT - for a start you've got to have CHT with more than one person, whether or not you've actually got more than one partner yourself (even the relationship between you and your partner's partner relies on CHT) - but those things are just as important in monogamy/monamory, only with fewer active participants.
Sure, polyamory opens up more issues that have to be handled with CHT since it allows for the formation of romantic, possibly sexual, relationships with more than one person, but it doesn't have the monopoly on those things.
"They must be getting something out of it". Ooh boy. There is such a thing as an unhealthy relationship that hurts both parties but which one or both are unable or unwilling to leave. Doesn't mean it qualifies as "successful".
I've known more than a few that the "something" they were getting out of a relationship was, in itself, very unhealthy.
I once knew a man, Jake, from Poland-Lithuania, back in the 1560's; and he loved to use his long rod to jump. Jake knew a man, an athletic man, a german, named Walter. And this Walter simply loved his Yams, because back in Germany, his mother used to make him the best Yams when she was listening to her Jazz Music. So, meanwhile, one day, Jake went on vabation and lent his long rod to Walter. That day, the Olympic Committee came and found this athletic man holding a long rod. And the man on the committee asked, "Are you a Pole Vaulter"? and Walter said "Heck no. I'm German through and through. I'm disgusted that you can't tell a pole from a German" so Walter left and went to America, where he married a Lucy Stoner who was the daughter of the Trombonist for Louis Armstrong's Hot Five; who was known to bake very good yams. So, Walter never ever forgot that he only met his wife because of that pole, that long rod, so he named his son after the two things he loved, but Walter could never remember how to spell Pole, he spelled it as Pol.
And so, that kid was named Pol Yam Ory.
edited 12th Nov '13 11:43:36 AM by Questrayve
Since someone brought the topic up, I must say, I've been finding these people who practice poly without knowing about the expression "polyamoury" and without having read the book (or any other book for that matter).
The results are a bit frightening; one of them has assembled a group of five lovers at a month's notice, on a rebound. All of them believe themselves to be "the primary", all of them demand a lot of her time, and, complicating the intended instrumentalization, they're beginning to know each other. And now she's planning to "eliminate" a few because she just doesn't have the time for everyone.
I find their lack of caution disturbing. This will not end well.
Also, my sister has borrowed The Book from me. I have mixed feelings about that.
Also, I'm finally getting to know the local polyps and slowly getting into the "subculture" part of things. Like-minded people are fun. For one thing, they documented themselves.
edited 12th Nov '13 2:16:13 PM by TheHandle
You can't handle my sister. Very few men can. She has such levels of sass, independence, intelligence, athleticism, beauty and elegance that men are struck down with a general feeling of inadequacy. Also, she's kind of a jerk, though she Took a Level in Kindness recently.
edited 12th Nov '13 2:37:49 PM by TheHandle
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?