Swingers, Could you be open to poly?

[vanillaknot]

We have been poly-in-principle since we got together, 13+ years ago. We simply have never found that person who truly belongs with us in this relationship, this household, this life.

[TNT]

Although we are open to the possibility of a poly relationship, it's something we realize, for us, is very improbable to ever happen for numerous reasons.

Originally Posted by good times

For us it is a time thing. We don't have as much quality time for each other as we would like, we would never have enough time to devote to a third person.

Time is a major factor...What little time we do have together is for each other...where the hell would we find the time to devote to building a relationship with someone else?

Originally Posted by Chicup

For me poly would be an near equal love, otherwise is just being really good friends.

Originally Posted by vanillaknot

We simply have never found that person who truly belongs with us in this relationship, this household, this life.

A true poly relationship to us would mean being equal in all things...it would be extremely hard to find a person whom we would feel would be an equal in our relationship as well as who would feel as it they were equal.

At this point in our lives there is too much history between Ted and I...Shared childhood memories, shared children/grandchildren...shared family, friends...shared heartaches and triumphs...those alone would always make mine and Ted's relationship a tighter bond than any relationship we shared with someone else.

That's not to say that one day we might meet someone whom we felt would "belong" (as vanillaknot said) and just fit naturally with us and in our lives...and that they too would feel as it they belonged and fit...regardless of the history between Ted and I.

It's possible, just not very probable. We remain open to it happening, we just don't ever expect it to.


Teresa

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by IvoryTowers

Okay, but just realize that your definition is much more strict than the one most people accept and use. The one I've heard most often is simply "having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of all parties."

That says nothing about the depth of the intimacy or feelings, the living arrangements, the length of the relationship, or the kind of love.

I don't think it's fair, as you did in your first post, to say that people who don't use your definition are "lying" about being poly, since your definition is the outlier. I'm not saying you have to accept the standard definition and/or call yourself poly. I just prefer not to be called a liar.

How does your definition of poly differ from swinging with a good friend?

[YZF]

Mrs. YZF and I wound up in a poly relationship after we had a full weekend swap with another couple and he did not take his wife back.

[IvoryTowers]

Originally Posted by Chicup

How does your definition of poly differ from swinging with a good friend?

It doesn't.

or

It differs in that we are open to those relationships turning into more

or

We go out on separate dates and have separate relationships, rather than together (which according to this board at least, seems to be a central feature of swinging)

or

We started the relationships as emotional connections and added the sex later rather than the othe way around

or

we are in love with other people, just not the kind of love you would recognize or accept

or

we define swinging as sexual encounters without any emotional connection; it's purely sexual. Anyone who regularly has sex with the same partner and cares about that partner is lying if he says he's swinging rather than poly.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by IvoryTowers

we define swinging as sexual encounters without any emotional connection; it's purely sexual. Anyone who regularly has sex with the same partner and cares about that partner is lying if he says he's swinging rather than poly.

I'll be sure to alert the friends first crowd

I'm sorry but I find unequal poly to not be poly, I think its often used as an excuse by people who don't want to think of themselves as 'dirty'. I've known a number of women with multiple fuck buddies who say their poly because 'sleep around' doesn't have the same feel to it.

Key word is I. As in I think.

You can think what you want on it, what I think doesn't diminish it.

[IvoryTowers]

Chicup, once again let me say I don't have a problem with what you think. I have a problem with you calling people who disagree with you liars, as you did in your first post.

If you had left that sentence out, I wouldn't have questioned you at all.

[Trace Ekies]

It seems to me, to be poly would require that Mrs. Ekies and I have a relationship with another couple/single that is very nearly the same as our relationship as husband/wife and I don't see that happening.

Of course, never say never, but we have no inclination to be in another relationship like we have now. We just want to meet nice people, make friends of them and then progress to having sex with them if we all want to.

We have dear friends in the lifestyle but no love beyond wanting to have sex with each other for sport. Have fun in and out of the bedroom and then go home to our own bedrooms when it's time to go home.

Trace

[NotSorry]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "swinging separately with friends" and being "poly". I suppose it's all in what words you want to use.

Then again, the words you use probably indicate what you're open to, and being "poly" might indicate you're open to more (in terms of extramarital relationships) than someone who "swings".

From my limited experience, the people who self-identify as poly do not have narrow definitions of what it means to be poly. In fact, I think the point may just be that relationships don't have to be narrowly defined, which is what we tend to do in our culture.

The NotSorry household can't figure out if it's poly or not and it's led to quite a bit of tough times.

~Mr NotSorry

[gatorvol64]

I have to tell you that the poly forum I belong to is having somewhat of a similar discussion in one of their threads right now....the difference between poly and swinging and if/where they overlap.

Chicup, I can understand your definition of poly. Most people do not have such a restricted view as this. In fact, the poly world is much like the swinging world, in that you'll find just as many definitions for poly there as you do swinging here, but you will find that these for poly are broader than the one you have. Webster's Online Dictionary also states a more lenient view of what the term polyamory means. The truth is, sex doesn't have to enter the equation in a poly relationship. (Not the kind for me.)

Some people, myself included, happen to belong to both the swinging and the poly camps. And I don't confuse myself at all.

Vol

[sweet_tna]

For me to answer the original question of whether I could be open to poly I'd have to first define what *I* think that entails.

My interpretation of poly differs from swinging in that you allow emotional romantic attachments to form with another person(s) with whom you have sex.

Based on this interpretation, my answer is . . . not really. I do have what I consider to be a borderline-poly relationship, but it's a line that will not be crossed. (And yes, we have discussed the matter with each other and our respective spouses--ad nauseum)

The reasons I do not believe we would ever cross that line are as follows:

1) We both value our relationships with our spouses too highly. In fact, we're not even sure we'd be able to love someone else even close to the depth with which we love our spouses. And that's assuming that . . .

2) either of our spouses would be open to that. While our spouses are comfortable enough with the best friends thing and the copious amount of time we spend together (in person and online), that is the limit of their willingness to "share" us.

3) Mr. Sweet and I have children, and that would significantly complicate any formalization of a relationship. They know “Barney" and know he’s my friend, and we prefer to leave it at that.

4) “Barney” and I are close, but our spouses don’t “click” the same way we do (emotionally). This would also complicate any attempt at a poly relationship.

5) DRAMA. While Mr. Sweet and I have what I think is a great marriage, it is, by nature, prone to at least occasional drama. Swinging increases the potential for more drama. Add in another romantic twist (or even a close friendship, as Barney will attest) and Chernoble starts to look like a day in the park. My life is exciting enough, thank you.

I certainly tip my hat to those who are able to open themselves to poly (whatever their definition), as I imagine it would be a wonderful thing when it works.

=)

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by gatorvol64

I have to tell you that the poly forum I belong to is having somewhat of a similar discussion in one of their threads right now....the difference between poly and swinging and if/where they overlap.

Chicup, I can understand your definition of poly. Most people do not have such a restricted view as this. In fact, the poly world is much like the swinging world, in that you'll find just as many definitions for poly there as you do swinging here, but you will find that these for poly are broader than the one you have. Webster's Online Dictionary also states a more lenient view of what the term polyamory means. The truth is, sex doesn't have to enter the equation in a poly relationship. (Not the kind for me.)

Some people, myself included, happen to belong to both the swinging and the poly camps. And I don't confuse myself at all.

Vol

Main Entry:
poly·am·ory Listen to the pronunciation of polyamory
Pronunciation:
\ˌpä-lē-ˈa-mə-rē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural poly·am·ories
Etymology:
polyamorous (from poly- + amorous) + 2-y
Date:
1994

: the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time
— poly·am·or·ist Listen to the pronunciation of polyamorist \-rist\ noun
— poly·am·o·rous Listen to the pronunciation of polyamorous \-ˈa-mə-rəs, -ˈam-rəs\ adjective

I think the crux is what is a romantic relationship. I don't think many versions of what people call 'poly' applies.

[sereneiders]

I apologize beforehand, since we had a poly relationship before and we're open to the idea, and the question was addressed to people who didn't. I guess I am going to be a little controversial among swingers here, but it's my take.

From my experience with others swingers, their opinions and the way some of them express their jealously, by now I believe there are two approaches to swinging:

1) Those who understands the word love as having multiple meanings for which we don't have independent "nouns" in our vocabulary, hence you love many people and the meaning of love differs from one another, even is slightly, without feeling compelled to define nor linearly measure those feelings as to compare them in terms of "loving X more than Y". We belong to this class, and for us what matters is whether the one you love sticks (it loyal) to the particular commitment stated for this very relationship (and not "any" nor "some other" one), applying this criteria to every relationship, without caring to compare them.

2) Those who understands some parts of their sexuality as an activity dissociated from love, while retaining a "more conventional definition" of love that let's them compare the relationships in terms of "loving X more than Y" (even when I don't know how they manage to do it), and shifts the boundaries of their commitment further away from the conventions to enable themselves to share those parts of their sexuality with others (for example, some activities are "shareable" while others are preserved to express love, hence "off limits").

This is too rough as a definition, I know, but I believe the answer to your question depends ultimately on this initial approach. The "pure swingers" would be the later ones, they require more rules and precautions to avoid developing feelings beyond a point of tolerance because that increases the risk of perceiving what's going on with a third party would mean "they're loving less than they did before or less than that third party". And of course, this is the commitment and it should be preserved and enforced.

What calls my attention regarding this subject is how the "pure swingers" perceive the "poly friendly" guys as a threat (much like a "vanilla couple" may perceive swingers as a threat), which for me is a sign of that operation of shifting boundaries they made.

As for the "poly friendly", at least from those that share our approach, if we treasure relationships for what they are, without asking for more than fulfilling the expectations each other have about it, allowing us to call this "love" in certain cases, we don't impose any threat (beyond that of enabling a valid question about the subject) to the "pure swingers" since we (or unless) expect them to commit to their own private arrangement without asking for more. At most it is a matter of semantics.

[YZF]

In our relationship the love between Quita and Mrs. YZF is equal to mine for those two women. What is weird is how well they get along since they can't communicate very well. Quita speaks no English and Mrs. YZF speaks no Spanish but there is a real passion between them.

[The Fuse]

Originally Posted by sereneiders

I apologize beforehand, since we had a poly relationship before and we're open to the idea, and the question was addressed to people who didn't. I guess I am going to be a little controversial among swingers here, but it's my take.

From my experience with others swingers, their opinions and the way some of them express their jealously, by now I believe there are two approaches to swinging:

1) Those who understands the word love as having multiple meanings for which we don't have independent "nouns" in our vocabulary, hence you love many people and the meaning of love differs from one another, even is slightly, without feeling compelled to define nor linearly measure those feelings as to compare them in terms of "loving X more than Y". We belong to this class, and for us what matters is whether the one you love sticks (it loyal) to the particular commitment stated for this very relationship (and not "any" nor "some other" one), applying this criteria to every relationship, without caring to compare them.

2) Those who understands some parts of their sexuality as an activity dissociated from love, while retaining a "more conventional definition" of love that let's them compare the relationships in terms of "loving X more than Y" (even when I don't know how they manage to do it), and shifts the boundaries of their commitment further away from the conventions to enable themselves to share those parts of their sexuality with others (for example, some activities are "shareable" while others are preserved to express love, hence "off limits").

This is too rough as a definition, I know, but I believe the answer to your question depends ultimately on this initial approach. The "pure swingers" would be the later ones, they require more rules and precautions to avoid developing feelings beyond a point of tolerance because that increases the risk of perceiving what's going on with a third party would mean "they're loving less than they did before or less than that third party". And of course, this is the commitment and it should be preserved and enforced.

What calls my attention regarding this subject is how the "pure swingers" perceive the "poly friendly" guys as a threat (much like a "vanilla couple" may perceive swingers as a threat), which for me is a sign of that operation of shifting boundaries they made.

As for the "poly friendly", at least from those that share our approach, if we treasure relationships for what they are, without asking for more than fulfilling the expectations each other have about it, allowing us to call this "love" in certain cases, we don't impose any threat (beyond that of enabling a valid question about the subject) to the "pure swingers" since we (or unless) expect them to commit to their own private arrangement without asking for more. At most it is a matter of semantics.

Hello sereneiders, I haven't seen you around here lately! Glad to see your post. Well put. We try to accept each loving relationship as it happens without worrying about whether it is "equal" to some other one. If someone told me our poly relationships weren't "real poly" because my love for my poly partners wasn't "equal" to my love for Mr. Fuse, I would have thought that was pretty silly. I know when I feel love.