Darn Questionland! I just went to edit this because I didn't realize until five minutes ago we could look at user histories here, and when I looked at yours, I saw your other post about your experience with poly, which was information that seems pretty essential to me with your question. It ate up my edit, so all you get is this lousy comment instead.

Looking at that previous post? You're right, per what you said in that one, poly does NOT guarantee that you won't have a douchey boyfriend. It doesn't guarantee the things said douchey boyfriend seemed to say it did, and also doesn't guarantee that anyone who chooses a poly model is a compassionate person, someone who will honor their agreements, or someone who won't see poly as a way to blow your feelings off.

But then, I don't know of any relationship model that comes with those guarantees, or any model at all that comes with any bonafide guarantees at all.

It's cool if poly just isn't your bag, and that doesn't make you any less or more "enlightened" then anyone else. But it sounds to me like in this particular experience of yours, the problem wasn't that you were dating poly, but that you were dating a jerk.

I agree that the problem was that I was dating a jerk, and I agree there are no guarantees with any kind of relationship, and I'm not looking for guarantees.

I still have a nagging feeling that polyamory offers a kind of cover to a certain kind of exploitative personality, though. I can't go into it here, but the jerkiness was definitely different from the monogamous jerks I dated, who at least didn't think it was beneath them to be my boyfriend.

I'm still not sure that's really about poly. It sounds more like...well, about evangelism, which can happen in anything, including in relationship models. Know what I mean?

If we want to try and dig deeper here in terms of your feelings about poly models as a whole being not-good for women as a whole, let me ask you this: would you feel the same way in poly situations in which there were ONLY women involved, or those which there were not only women, but which a poly agreement was initiated by a female partner, and/or the female partner was the only one or primary one who had other partners?

Hmm...your "evangelism" comment is interesting. I do think there were control issues going on. In all the relationships this person is in, he holds all the cards, and the women sort of are content with whatever crumbs of time and affection fall their way. He claims that to live any other way would not be being "true to himself" as if he is just being honest and authentic, and this is just how it plays out--not his fault, and he always points out the women are free to leave...

Obviously, that's true, and I did, but I don't think it's really more "ethical" to just not ever take one's partners' feelings and needs into account, and then say, well, no one's forcing you to be here. It's still very hurtful to be treated that way by someone you're intimately involved with. And that's what upsets me to this day--the lack of respect. I was never looking for a monogamous commitment from him. I did want loyalty, though, and now I wonder if that is ever possible with polyamory? I'm not trying to overgeneralize, this is something I've actually given a lot of thought to. I hate possessiveness in relationships, which is what drew me to polyamory in the first place. But I do want loyalty--does that make any sense?

I gotta say, I really wish you'd have addressed my last questions, because I feel like you're focusing not on poly, but on THIS one poly relationship with THIS one guy, executed THIS one way.

All the same, yes, it totally makes sense, and again -- more and more with each thing I read about this noob, actually -- this guy really sounds like an epic schmuck. Narcissists make shitty loves or lovers no matter WHAT the model, though for sure, it's entirely possible that some models may allow them to hide their bullshit better or make it seem more appealing. I still think that's the fault of the person doing that, though, not whatever they're using to do it with. There's nothing in a polyamory as a whole, just like with monogamy, that says it is or should be about disregarding anyone's feelings. And this guy doing so in a poly relationship doesn't make it so, just like Pat Robertson doesn't make one religion as a whole something awful because he happens to be a yucky person who subscribes to that religion.

I don't know what loyalty means to you, but to me, it means a real devotion to someone or something, paired with some serious integrity. I'm someone who has sometimes wanted/been okay with poly and sometimes wanted/been okay with monogamy, but I don't see that either of those models assures me any more or any less loyalty by themselves, because loyalty for me isn't about sexual exclusivity, save when an agreement has been made for exclusivity, in which case loyalty comes into play per honoring that agreement. But I'd say the same is true in a poly situation with whatever agreements we made there, agreements that are about more than just who can fuck whom, but also about how things around sexual partnership get negotiated and communicated.

"I don't know what loyalty means to you, but to me, it means a real devotion to someone or something, paired with some serious integrity."

YES. I think this is a wonderful way of putting it. Does it really exist? I'm starting to think real integrity is extremely rare, unfortunately...and it's what I crave in a relationship more than anything: Honesty, integrity, being true to your word and our agreements, whatever they may be.

Regarding your hypotheticals: I still do feel it would be very difficult in any polyamorous situation for someone to not feel like they are getting the short end, so to speak. It just seems like it is so hard even in monogamous relationships to find enough time, for instance (balancing with family, friends, etc.) I think time will always be an issue, and I have no idea how things like major holidays are divvied up. (There is only one New Year's Eve!)

So--I do see some issues with poly relationships, no matter what the gender. Therefore I think you are right that targeting the male/female dynamic was a reaction to my own experience. (Unfortunately part of that experience was a manipulative person using the label "polyamorous" to create a very self-serving situation for himself.) Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Best,
Lauren

As to how time is divvied up, that differs for every poly relationship. In some cases, the answer is that it isn't divvied up - everyone comes together for holidays and special occasions. Some groups alternate them. As a dear friend put it: "love is infinite, time is not."

There's no one way that works for everyone. The "rules" aren't as clearcut as monogamous relationships, for sure - I mean, pretty much everyone understands the way those work (miss my birthday or our anniversary and you're in deep shit). Poly relationships that are gonna work are the ones where all the parties discuss those kinds of issues and come to mutually-agreeable compromises.

Yes, I think loyalty exists. But I also think it takes some finding, a lot of trial and error, and also some sound pacing in relationships.

I hear you on the time-and-attention management issue. Personally, it's why I more often do not do poly simply because I know myself well enough to know that as it stands, my job tends to be a primary and one partner a secondary, so anyone thereafter who is not fairly occasional either needs to only want to be seen infrequently (or to see me infrequently) or they're going to be very unhappy. All good relationships require the people in them to be very self-aware, but I'd say this is one of the ways in which a little extra is often required in poly.

Per holidays, not all of us celebrate holidays or the same ones, but it's workable for people who want to work it out. You might also want to bear in mind that unlike what it sounds like was happening in your situation, not all poly relationships involve only one person having other partners.

You're welcome, and per my other comment in the other thread of comments going on here, I really hope you get that full-on cocktail vent session (or twelve) if you haven't already. Or maybe some really scathing karaoke. "Cry Me a River" might do you just right.

Just to jump in a very interesting discussion. Devotion and integrity do exist. Sometimes, you have to meet guys like the one you were with so you can learn to see through their bullshit and find the guys that actually do have integrity and really would be devoted to you.

It's not impossible. Guys are out there that have these traits. Your job is to not settle for the jackasses, so you'll be available when you actually meet one. : )

Too many people get involved in poly for really horrible reasons. The classic one, of course, is "relationship broken - add more people." That's almost a guaranteed fail right there. You're right, the things that make a monogamous relationship a healthy one are the very same things that make poly relationships healthy. And the same things break either one.

That's what I see, too, more women than men driving the whole thing. Sure, there's skanky guys doing it to get notches on the bedpost, just as there are in the swinger community. But my own experience has been that the better-mannered men in the poly community wait for women to approach them. And almost all the well-known sex educators in this area seem to be women. You chief among them. ;-)

I don't know...I guess because I am a woman, and I was screwed over by a man! ;)

Seriously--I guess it could be just as much of a raw deal for either gender. I just personally don't see how you can really honor the feelings and needs of more than one person at a time in an intimate relationship. Not if it is more than casual. That's just me. I know polyamorous folks vehemently disagree. They often point out that parents provide for the needs of more than one child. But haven't they heard of sibling rivalry? They just seem to ignore/gloss over a lot of the implications of this kind of relationship, in my opinion.

I realize I've been talking about this in really broad, general terms (so no wonder people are accusing me of overgeneralizing!) so to give a more specific answer to your question about what "rubbed me the wrong way":
It was NOT about jealousy or possessiveness of other relationships. I'm not a possessive person. But, every time we saw each other, it was at a time chosen by him, for a duration set by him, to work around his schedule/other relationships. Every. Single. Time. I could never--I mean, literally, never-- see him just because I wanted to, because he would be busy. That is just not how a monogamous relationship generally works, even a shitty one. Being in a relationship like that just makes you feel like a total beggar for the person's affection. It's demoralizing.

Another thing I didn't dig about it was that he would talk to me about his other relationships. Again, jealousy was not the issue--I was bothered because I knew it must mean he talked about our relationship with these other people who I didn't even know. To me, that was disrespectful. I could go on, but there are two examples of what I didn't like about it, and which I gather are not uncommon features of normal polyamorous relationships (especially time issues).

Well, it really does sound like you were unlucky and got involved with a self-absorbed jerk. But it seems the things that bothered you were specific to his shortcomings, not endemic to polyamory.

I don't think you can conclude from your experience that polyamory is bad for all women, or that it is a raw deal for people in general. In polyamorous relationships (or any relationships, really) you can make and adjust the rules to fit the needs of the participants. Maybe polyamory didn't fit your needs, but different folks have different needs that might be well suited to it.

To me, it sounds like your problem wasn't polyamory, but the person with whom you attempted to practice it.

If someone in a poly situation is finding there is a partner they almost never have time for, or finding that in order for a partner to see them, it's like trying to schedule an appointment with the President, that person is managing poly poorly, and should recognize they either need to cut back per partners, manage their time better, or if they have partners who want more time than they have or want to give, need to make clear they just can't meet that need.

If this guy was sharing parts of your relationship that you wanted to be private and agreed to keep private, or refused to make any agreements with you about your privacy, then again, this person was managing poly badly.

Once more with feeling, you don't have to dig poly, do poly, or like poly. You get to only like and engage in whatever relationship models work best for you. But everyone in poly isn't dating this guy. And some people in monogamy are.

This really all sounds like this is about one experience with one guy, something you're understandably really pissed off about, but seem to be projecting unto something that isn't this guy.

Please tell me you have had at least a few late-night-rounds with friends, perhaps with many cocktails, where you got to all but do a performance art piece to vent out all these feelings about this craptastic experience? If not, I think that'd help a lot more than looking to try and assign something bad-for-women status that was just, in this context, at least, and maybe period, bad for you.

Heather:

I can't tell you how comforting this comment is! It is really good to know that these are not universal aspects of polyamorous relationships. Whenever I raised any issue (like the scheduling thing--my analogy was that it was like making a dentist appointment every time I wanted to see my boyfriend: "How about next Tuesday, from 5-7? No? Anything in the A.M.?") I was told that it WAS just a feature of being in that kind of relationship, and I had to adjust my monogamous-based expectations accordingly. This was my only experience with polyamory, and I believed him.

I do feel like a dupe, but it's reassuring to know it wasn't me--or polyamory, or monogamy--it was him!

As for the drinks thing--no, he is very cute and charming (of course! how could he get away with all this if he weren't) and all my friends love him. I don't talk crap about him, because I don't want to appear bitter (which I am). Thanks for letting me rant to you guys, though.

Maybe it's time to get a couple new friends, then, ones who can see past cute and charming and also have your back when the chips are down. Might be a good place to start on the Great Loyalty Hunt of 2010, methinks.

But not, this isn't universal in poly, and yes, you got duped by a schmo. It happens to the best of us, usually more than once.

l have to go back to work, but l have some more diplomatic words for you regarding the relationship you've shared with us. Though for now, l'll reiterate what everyone else is saying, which is that your 'poly' boyfriend (ex? Sorry, l've been on a time crunch and skimming) is an ass.

I agree with you on the term "polyamory"! It's not mine, and it bugs me for the same reason--I almost put that in my original post: "even the name is phony." (I thought it would sound too snarky, though.)

I also agree that I could never imagine breaking up with someone I loved because I--or they--had sex with someone else. I think it's unrealistic to expect to not have passion for more than one person, and I think ideally, loving relationships should be able to accommodate that. It seems the French have a more realistic model than the American one in many ways, because they expect there to be many different kinds of lovers in one's life, beyond the spousal-type relationship.

But I notice you use the phrase "outside our coupledom." I think this is how "polyamorous" people differ from "couples" in open relationships: there is no couple. And for me, that would be/was difficult. It would be hard--for me--to have a serious, long-term relationship with more than one person at a time, which is what proponents of "polyamory" claim to be capable of doing. But I guess it does work for some people--at least they say so.

I can definitely envision having a loving, non-monogamous relationship like the one you describe, but not a "polyamorous" triad or quad relationship where there is no "primary." I think I just need to come first with someone, to know there is one person I can call on if I really need to, and they will be there for me, and I for them, and that is our deal with each other, even if exclusivity is not part of the bargain (and I don't think it needs to be). It may sound selfish to some, but I have come to the conclusion that that is what I want and need in a relationship (that feeling of partnership) and I am fine being alone until I find someone who feels the same way. What I learned is that compromising what really matters to you just to be with someone is not worth it--for anyone.