SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

You can build a life with someone without being married. You can be completely and utterly committed to another person without being married. To me, marriage is a legal contract/agreement. It's not about my love or commitment to my fch. It's about medical insurance and taxes and custody of our children and such.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. I'm just a romantic at heart, and marriage means more to me than just a piece of paper. DH would have stayed in a relationship with me without being married, no issues there. I think marriage means different things to different people, which is why I said that could spark and interesting conversation, too.

So, neither of you have to be concerned that the other might form such a strong emotional bond with another that you would divorce? Both of you have that boundary set. Ypu won't let another come between you. That was part of the agreement when you got married. So, your H is the one above all others, regardless of how you may feel for another.

coco- being married doesn't stop people from forming that kind of bond. People get divorced because they met someone new, every single day. They don't have to be poly for it to be a possibility.

The difference here is that if I or my husband forms a very strong emotional bond with someone else, it doesn't need to lead to divorce. We aren't serial monogamists, so if we got divorced, it would be about a problem with US. It would be entirely irrelevant as to what was going on in a different dyad.

I genuinely don't believe that another person could "come between us" because that's not how it works. When you can have both, there is no either/or.

I really believe that the concept that the friend in this situation is the problem denies the agency of the spouse. We don't say the AP is the problem when our spouse cheats. They choose to cheat. So if a friend is causing problems, it's still a spouse problem, don't you agree?

By the way, I apologize about the generalization that most people would ask the spouse to terminate the friendship in my example. Some people would and some people wouldn't.

As to your friend, it doesn't really matter how long you knew him or what you thought of him. We only know that much about other people that they want us to know. You don't know what might have been going on in his head. Ypu don't know how he really felt. Ypu know what he told you. You know what he showed you.

If you are a BP, you know that all of that can be a lie. I'm guessing you thought you knew your XWH. I'm guessing you thought he would cheat on you. Obviously, you were wrong. You didn't really know anything.

I agree with this in most of the aspects. Yup, I've been deceived and betrayed. I do tend to blame myself a lot of the time though, because I'm a very perceptive person in general and I pick up what is going unsaid.

But I do tend to draw people who, like me, want to connect deeply. People who (mono or poly) want to share their personal thoughts and feelings with someone else. So I feel like I get to know people fairly well. Maybe I am wrong- I have been wrong before.

I don't hide parts of myself anymore. This year, I chose to live my life as authentically as possible. I remember when I was younger I talked about the masks we all wear when we interact with people, and how much effort it takes to be who you are expected to be. I chose not to do that anymore, and I try to spend as much time as possible with people who believe similarly. Obviously, within what's appropriate- it doesn't mean that I talk about my sex life at work- but that wouldn't be genuinely me anyway thank goodness.

[This message edited by PSTI at 11:47 AM, December 29th (Sunday)]

I think if there's one thing that is the best part of SI is that people bring various beliefs, situations and paths to the forum giving multiple perspectives across a WIDE spectrum. And here PTSI is one of those diverse perspectives. Despite the common ground we often find with our pain, the paths that got us there and forward are different. As many have prefaced their posts with YMMV.

Every relationship regardless of the rules ascribed to it can go awry. I know poly and swinging couples who have wonderful relationships and others for whom that choice went awry and was NOT the right path at all. The same is true for traditional relationship success rate, though it's certainly harder to take the non traditional path.

PSTI, I’m curious ... how do you, being in an open marriage, define an affair? It’s my understanding that open marriages mean the spouses agree to have other lovers in their lives when they feel the need/desire for one or two or three or whatever.

So, how would a person in an open marriage have an affair?

PTSI, I think you missed the point of what I was saying. It didn't have anything to do with marriage. It was about the agreement that you and your H entered into when agreeing to be poly. You both agreed that you wouldn't get so involved with another person that it would lead to you leaving. That's not the same as getting divorced because one of you was involved with another.

For example, you have assured your H that no matter how attached you get to your BF, you will not leave your H. You will not let that, or any other, relationship take away from your H. So, it's ok for you to have what is es an EA, but it's not an A because of the agreement you have with your H.

Duplicate post

[This message edited by cocoplus5nuts at 7:42 PM, December 29th (Sunday)]

So, how would a person in an open marriage have an affair?

That depends how the people in that marriage define an affair. In our case, it would be the deception only. If either of us was seeing someone and failed to disclose it, for whatever reason, that would be an affair.

It makes no sense in my brain, but there are indeed people in open relationships who cheat.

Also, there is a difference between open marriages and polyamorous ones. Some open marriages would define love or romance as cheating and only be okay with sex. One of the beautiful things about nontraditional relationships is the lack of universality. You can build the shape of the relationship to suit the people involved rather than following the default.

PTSI, I think you missed the point of what I was saying. It didn't have anything to do with marriage. It was about the agreement that you and your H entered into when agreeing to be poly. You both agreed that you wouldn't get so involved with another person that it would lead to you leaving. That's not the same as getting divorced because one of you was involved with another.

For example, you have assured your H that no matter how attached you get to your BF, you will not leave your H. You will not let that, or any other, relationship take away from your H. So, it's ok for you to have what is es an EA, but it's not an A because of the agreement you have with your H.

No, coco, I think you have the wrong idea of what I'm saying, because that doesn't make sense to me. I'm honestly not even sure how to parse that so as to respond.

We did not agree that we would never get so involved with someone else so as to leave. But that's just part of the foundation of polyamory. There IS no "get so involved with someone else so as to leave". Relationships are AND, not OR. So if my husband leaves me or I leave him, it's about our relationship. It has nothing to do with a separate dyad.

Relationships are entirely separate things. This is not a zero sum game, where what one gets takes away from the other. I think that you've got a faulty underlying premise in your thought process.

I don't leave my DH no matter how involved I am with DBF because I'm polyamorous. The end game for me is not monogamy. I choose and, not or. That's how polyamory works.

[This message edited by PSTI at 8:06 PM, December 29th (Sunday)]

PSTI, while I appreciate your long and thoughtful response, I'm going to step back from this thread and try to explain why. This is a bit weird for me, as a WW (well, technically a MH, but primarily identifying as a WW) to be explaining my take on the BS experience to an actual fBW. But since the triggers on this thread keep coming, and you seem genuinely perplexed about why, I want to try to outline why I don't think SI is the place for the kind of discussion you want to have.

I genuinely don't believe that another person could "come between us" because that's not how it works. When you can have both, there is no either/or.

I really believe that the concept that the friend in this situation is the problem denies the agency of the spouse. We don't say the AP is the problem when our spouse cheats. They choose to cheat. So if a friend is causing problems, it's still a spouse problem, don't you agree?

In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned the Game Changer. This is the person who comes into a poly relationship and irretrievably alters what were previously established as the rules of that relationship, up to and including its total destruction. I was curious about your use of the capitalized term, so I did some exploring. Apparently, the poly community attitude about the Game Changer is that they are like a tornado. An act of God. Something that rarely happens, but something you ultimately can't prevent, like fate. The conventional wisdom seems to be that if you encounter the Game Changer, the healthy thing to do is to accept it and wish your partner well on their new adventure, because to do otherwise is controlling and insecure.

Now, I'd have thought this would be obvious, but that is not going to fly here. The people on this site organized their lives on the principle of protecting their marriage first and foremost. In monogamy, every AP is a Game Changer, which is why both physical and emotional intimacy with anyone who could become an AP is an unacceptable risk. The intrusion of a Game Changer isn't a new opportunity, it's a catastrophic failure by the partner who allowed the intruder anywhere near the marriage. And as a result, the idea that the WS and potential APs have relationship rights that the BS's needs infringe upon is going to be pretty incendiary.

Even the resources I'm reading in the polyamory community seem to agree that it's a fool who thinks that they can control the outcome of introducing another human being into a relationship. There's a terrific (and looonnng) piece on unicorn hunting that sums it up eloquently: "There is only one way to be certain that your current relationship remains strong, solid, and will continue for a long time and that is to strengthen your current relationship by doing things that are beneficial to that specific relationship. If you do, barring any untimely deaths, it will most likely last a long time. You are not likely to strengthen your current relationship by paying attention ANYWHERE else but your current relationship, which includes each member as an individual (yourself included) and each connection."

Note that this is a writer who endorses polyamory. Their point is that couples who think they can introduce another person's emotions and priorities into their relationship without consequence are just fooling themselves and begging for painful complications. If you want that primary relationship to be a secure as possible, there are going to be sacrifices, and one of them is intimacy with people who do not also put that relationship first.

And that's the deal that everyone here made, and the deal their spouse claimed to have made. There's nothing controlling about it. Nothing emotionally immature or "silly." Your friend's wife looked at you and saw a risk. Your friend may have secretly agreed, harboring an attraction for you that you didn't suspect. He may have just felt that her happiness is more important to him than yours. That's a belief system that people here support and understand. It's fine if you don't agree, but coming on this brokenhearted forum to dismiss it as controlling is like advocating atheism on a religious website -- or monogamy on a poly site. There's plenty of places to discuss the topic with people who won't be triggered horribly. So why here?

I'm actually interested in your views, PSTI, and if you want to continue the discussion by PM, I'm down with that. But I'm out from this thread, because SI is a rare safe space for people who are hurting, and whether intentionally or not, I think the topic is asking them to defend their feelings and priorities in ways they should not have to defend. Others may disagree, but I'm not comfortable with it, so I'm signing off.

^^^yes, what BSR said. Better than I could. This is what I meant by feeling like I couldn’t trust you didn’t have an angle, and didn’t believe you when you said you didn’t...for all of those reasons (and she stated many ethereal feelings I had but couldn’t name). I am also very triggered by this topic.

You may well have no ulterior motive and I am just jaded...but I just can’t understand what you don’t understand about the folks here having issues with other emotional (and potentially romantic, not just friends) outlets when we practice monogamy,,,we are being “silly” or controlling as you said. We value the traditional model and see its beauty. There are aspects of your model that threaten that, at least it feels that way.

I also don’t have as much faith in people as you seem to when you state “ I genuinely don't believe that another person could "come between us" because that's not how it works. When you can have both, there is no either/or.” I know too many competitive wolves in sheep’s clothing who’d have fun with this....

I wish I was more eloquent to express these things as BSR did

[This message edited by Justsomelady at 8:37 PM, December 29th (Sunday)]

PSTI, thank you for the explanation. Being open/poly is not for me, then. I would go crazy knowing my husband was sleeping with and loving other women no matter how open he was with me about it! My brain and heart are just wired to love and remain fully committed to just one person. I can't imagine it working well in any other way for me.

I'll leave the thread now since it's pointless to continue when we don't share the same definition for what makes up an affair. Obviously, I'm a lot more black and white about it, and my boundaries for what constitutes cheating are pretty narrow. It's just part of the worldview I hold, and I fully understand not everyone believes that same way.

I also don’t have as much faith in people as you seem to when you state “ I genuinely don't believe that another person could "come between us" because that's not how it works. When you can have both, there is no either/or.” I know too many competitive wolves in sheep’s clothing who’d have fun with this....

Justsomelady- as long as it's not my spouse, I don't particularly care. There's no competition if I don't play. I know who I am and what I bring to the table. If that's not enough for my husband, I wish him well in finding someone better. The motives of the other person are entirely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. And, not or- remember? He doesn't have to choose when he could have both. We aren't dating around until we find someone- we live a poly lifestyle because we like being poly. So there is no endgame of eventually "settling down" and being mono. What is there to compete over?

BSR- I appreciate your thoughtful post. I can only say that I believe you are misinterpreting some of the resources that you read. The one in particular that you quoted, I believe I recognize it as an article designed for unicorn hunters which is supposed to politely give them a wakeup call that the idea they have in mind is not only ridiculous but likely abusive to any additional person.

As for the bit about the Game Changer, is it not an Act of God anywhere? It's not something that can be controlled or prevented, no matter what you do, unless you keep your spouse locked in a cage. It could be someone they meet at the coffee shop or another parent at school or a person they work with. The whole reason for that description is that it's something that really can't be stopped- and if it could, then your partner likely would be unhappier as a result. I would never, ever want to be the reason that my partner lives a less happier or fulfilled life. Would I be sad that (even if I was mono) that it would not include me? Hell yes. But I am sure that most people who genuinely care about their partners would ultimately feel the same way. My happiness shouldn't be prioritized over my partner's- they should be both taken into account. Either way- it's not a failure by anyone if your spouse meets the Game Changer. It literally could not have been prevented, in most cases. The Game Changer isn't a relationship that builds slowly- it's like a stroke of lightning is how you hear it described. The Act of God description is very apt. No one is at fault for not preventing a meteor strike, for example.

I guess I would not call a "regular" AP a Game Changer, as you put it. When I say it, I mean someone you are willing to totally upend your life for. Maybe they're a long distance person and you decide it's worth moving to give it a go. Or you meet someone and have that soul mate connection. I don't think most APs were at that level of connection, honestly- but maybe I'm wrong? I would figure if a WS met a Game Changer that there would be no R because WS would leave to be with the AP, otherwise they weren't important enough. Do you disagree?

What I believe the author of the unicorn hunting article means is that people need to accept that once you open your relationship, that it will never be the same. They usually have as their primary goal, the preservation of the original relationship. That's not how life works. You have to be willing to accept that things will change, not might change. It was written for couples who think of "getting a third" like getting a puppy. All those misconceptions in that article? I've seen them, and it's disgusting. The sad part is that those couples are generally the ones who think they are open and honest and tolerant, and they still hit those pitfalls through inexperience. The ones who think of "a third" (and I use that language deliberately) as a sexual chew toy? That's even worse unless the expectations are clearly understood by all.

The author is trying to say that by focusing on your dyad, that's how you will ensure your relationship lasts. They aren't saying pour ALL your energy into that dyad, or that energy taken away will cost. Again, it's not a zero sum game. If you look at articles on conscious disentanglement, you'll see that most poly people believe that focusing all your energy on your primary relationship can be unhealthy and foster CoD instead of interdependence. I understand that is not a belief that will resonate here. But it's certainly not what that article is saying. It's saying- if you want your relationship to be secure, put energy into it; don't set up all these rules trying to protect it because not only does that not work but it can erode intimacy.

I rather think that the thoughts behind that one in particular would go over like a lead balloon here, but it's not how I would talk about polyamory. And again- not recommending it here, either. I don't think it's all that relevant specifically to the issue of emotional affairs.

I think what specifically piques my interest about EAs is the group that doesn't have any romantic or sexual connection between the people involved. That's the area that I have a hard time seeing as an EA- like the example I gave about my former friend. I guess some people here would consider what we had to be an EA? I just don't see it as any different than a very close friend, and I'd feel like an unethical person to cut friends off because my spouse felt threatened. I would hope that they would trust me enough to know that I wouldn't violate our agreements. I didn't when I was mono, and I don't now.

Like I said- I think there is always validity in challenging our own thoughts and beliefs and examining those of others, even if they don't resonate with us. There was been some good food for thought in here though and I appreciate the comments that have been made so far.

[This message edited by PSTI at 3:07 PM, December 30th (Monday)]

I don't leave my DH no matter how involved I am with DBF because I'm polyamorous.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. So, in your relationships, assuming everyone is honest and up front, there could not be an EA because no relationship takes away from the other. And, no matter how involved you get with someone else, you won't leave your H because of that.

I never said you wouldn't leave your H under any circumstance. I said exactly what you said.

like the example I gave about my former friend. I guess some people here would consider what we had to be an EA? I just don't see it as any different than a very close friend, and I'd feel like an unethical person to cut friends off because my spouse felt threatened. I would hope that they would trust me enough to know that I wouldn't violate our agreements. I didn't when I was mono, and I don't now.

Was your friend and his SO poly as well?

If not how can you not see that she could have felt threatened by his friendship with you???

How is what you describe as the Game Changer any different from an AP? The CP is mostly certainly willing to upend his whole life for the AP. That's exactly what happens.

you meet someone and have that soul mate connection. I don't think most APs were at that level of connection, honestly- but maybe I'm wrong?

And, this. How many times have we read about a CP saying the AP was their soulmate, especially CWs? They say they are in love. Some even go so far as to plan a life together after knowing each other for only a short time. How is that not a Game Changer as you just described it?

I don't believe in a Game Changer the way you describe it. I don't believe in fate. I don't believe in soulmates. A person only becomes a Game Changer if you let them. You can choose not to let them and turn your focus back to your M.

the group that doesn't have any romantic or sexual connection between the people involved. That's the area that I have a hard time seeing as an EA-

I don't necessarily see that as an EA, either,...yet. That's when you have to consider the slippery slope, as it's called. For example, my fch's A started out as what he called a friendship. They talked about personal stuff with each other that they weren't sharing with their spouses. There were any romantic or sexual feelings from my fch at first. I do believe the MOW had ulterior motives. It became romantic for my fch because of the closeness he felt from the sharing of intimate details about their lives.

On its face, I wouldn't have necessarily considered that an EA at first. I probably wouldn't have felt threatened because I don't operate that way. I'm not a jealous person and I don't feel threatened by others. Once he cheated, though, if he wants to stay married to me, he has to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. If he can't set and keep firm boundaries with other women, then he needs to not be friends with them.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. So, in your relationships, assuming everyone is honest and up front, there could not be an EA because no relationship takes away from the other. And, no matter how involved you get with someone else, you won't leave your H because of that.

I never said you wouldn't leave your H under any circumstance. I said exactly what you said.

My apologies, then, coco, because that's not what I read from your post. I also wouldn't leave DBF because of DH, so I thought you were continuing the conversation with regards to marriage and agreements about polyamory. To me, this is just the foundation of polyamory in general.

How is what you describe as the Game Changer any different from an AP? The CP is mostly certainly willing to upend his whole life for the AP. That's exactly what happens.

Because the WS isn't willing to walk for it. I believe that a Game Changer is called that, and in caps, because it's the thing that makes you make a big dramatic change. To me, R isn't a big forward change. I respect that others may see it differently. I see Game Changers as accepting a job in a different country or a dramatic career change or a new all consuming hobby or a new religion or a romantic partner that makes you change your whole life. It's a rare thing. I suspect most people live their whole lives without a change of this magnitude. Limerence/NRE is not "soulmates" and anyone who believes that really needs to do some reading. But I don't doubt the people who are much older than me who tell me about their soulmate. I believe it can be a thing. Maybe it won't ever be a thing for me, and I think what I have with DH is close enough- but I would never describe him in that way.

I don't necessarily see that as an EA, either,...yet. That's when you have to consider the slippery slope, as it's called. For example, my fch's A started out as what he called a friendship. They talked about personal stuff with each other that they weren't sharing with their spouses. There were any romantic or sexual feelings from my fch at first. I do believe the MOW had ulterior motives. It became romantic for my fch because of the closeness he felt from the sharing of intimate details about their lives.

Huh. I guess there's another thing. I don't develop romantic feelings merely from intimate connection with another person. It's a separate basket for me mentally, I think. But I can see how this would be a thing for some people. As a pansexual person though, it doesn't make "sense" to me on the same level maybe. Either this is a person I'd like to have a romantic/sexual connection with, in which case we discuss it, or they aren't, and we build an awesome friendship. I don't think I have ever in my life fallen for someone over time like that if I wasn't looking to build that type of connection.

Was your friend and his SO poly as well?

If not how can you not see that she could have felt threatened by his friendship with you???

Dragonhrt, I wasn't poly at the time, actually. I was in a closed monogamous marriage. But either way, no, I don't see how she could have been threatened. We had been friends for twelve years! If we had wanted to have sex, we had plenty of time to do it before he (or I, for that matter, since I'm not a cheater) were attached.

[This message edited by PSTI at 8:02 PM, December 30th (Monday)]

is not "soulmates" and anyone who believes that really needs to do some reading.

That's true, but the people in it don't see that. They think it's true love. They think the AP is their soulmate. They are willing to do something extremely drastic with their life for the AP. I know my fch did. He crossed his own moral code. I understand, though, how that's not what you mean when you talk about the Game Changer.

I also wouldn't leave DBF because of DH, so I thought you were continuing the conversation with regards to marriage and agreements about polyamory.

I may have said that your H was primary. I understand now where the lines were getting crossed.

That leads me back to an earlier question. Why get married if you're going to have 2 equal romantic/sexual relationships? Why is one your H and one your BF? Why not just have 2 BFs?

That leads me back to an earlier question. Why get married if you're going to have 2 equal romantic/sexual relationships? Why is one your H and one your BF? Why not just have 2 BFs?

I wasn't dating DBF when I got married to DH, or the situation may have been different. But the relationships aren't equal- they are fair. I don't think equality really has a place in relationships because that leads to so many issues.

I coparent with my DH. We have financial entanglements. We also supported each other through the worst times in our lives. There is a very deep level of entwinement in our relationship.

I've only been dating DBF for 18 months. That's a relatively short period of time. I love him and I'm in love with him, but our relationship currently doesn't have that degree of life entwinement in it. We do not live together, share finances, or anything like that, and he's not a parental figure to DS.

So, the relationships are not equal at this point in time. It's possible that in the future things will change, and I'm open to that possibility, as are the two of them. But there's no rush.

We also feel that things are fair, and we make sure that it's so. When DBF visits, he almost always gets to sleep with me, since DH points out he gets the lion's share of my time the rest of the time. We recently revisited that agreement for special occasions since it wasn't fair that DH never got to sleep with me on special occasions. DBF never is treated like he is less important. If I make plans with him, they don't get pushed aside if DH wants something- only if there was an urgent need that he could not handle alone. We're not closeted, so DBF gets the same acknowledgement of being in a relationship etc etc

I married DH because I wanted to build a life with him. We are very compatible life partners as well as romantic partners. It doesn't mean that eventually that someone else might not become part of that dream or have the same meaning to me. Equality in multiple relationships just generally isn't a concept that works, I think. Even in a triad (and we're not a triad), people's feelings don't develop at the same pace and will have starts and stops. I think equity is by far the more important concept here.

Does that make more sense?

[This message edited by PSTI at 1:51 PM, December 31st (Tuesday)]

I’m still not understanding the point in getting married. You say you wanted to build a life with your H. But, you acknowledge that you can build a life without M. If you both knew that, at some point, other people would become a part of your lives, why get married? You didn’t need to do that to build a life together.

I guess, maybe, explain what you mean by building a life together that requires marriage. If you mean being able to share medical insurance and have default inheritance rights and equal parenting rights, that makes sense.

I’m still not understanding the point in getting married. You say you wanted to build a life with your H. But, you acknowledge that you can build a life without M. If you both knew that, at some point, other people would become a part of your lives, why get married? You didn’t need to do that to build a life together.

I guess, maybe, explain what you mean by building a life together that requires marriage. If you mean being able to share medical insurance and have default inheritance rights and equal parenting rights, that makes sense.

Then you may as well ask why anyone gets married, coco. Lots of people do it for reasons that aren't the legal stuff, right?

I don't have any firm plans to have two relationships at what people would consider to be primary level, like two husbands. My husband doesn't plan to have two wives. All those things are possibles in the future, they're up in the air.

What wasn't up in the air when we decided to get married was our relationship with each other. We wanted to make that commitment to each other, and we surely could have done it without that piece of paper, but it has meaning to us.

Things might change in the future. I think that if one doesn't acknowledge that life is fluid and that changes might happen, that one is going to be in for a rude awakening at some point. Life happens when we're making plans, right?

But what might happen in the future is totally independent of the commitment we wanted to make to each other. Why not get married just because there might be others at some point in the future? It doesn't change that we want to build a life together.

Again, there's no set endgame here for us to settle down with multiple partners- that's not how it works either. Have you read about the Relationship Escalator? Poly relationships are totally off the escalator. So I might date my boyfriend in a nonentangled liveout situation for years. He might move in next week (ok, that's not a thing I'd rush into undiscussed but just to make a point), or we might break up tomorrow. My husband might meet someone who could be anything from a fuckbuddy to someone he also wants to share his life with. And all of that is okay. But we don't plan our lives around possibilities- we look at what we have now, and go from there. When situations come up, we'll deal with them as we go.

There's no right or wrong answer here. Lots of poly people choose not to get married. But lots of mono people choose not to get married, too. It all depends what marriage means to you or if there are legal reasons to do so. Marriage, to us, had meaning beyond all the legal stuff. We could absolutely have chosen to build a life together without that paper, but we wanted to make that affirmation to each other.

We could absolutely have chosen to build a life together without that paper, but we wanted to make that affirmation to each other.

This is what I dont understand.

What affirmation dis you make to eachother?

Seems like you miss out alot on the pair bond experience when you invite others into your relationship. I just find theres something special about having a one and only, a person who is not only my love my friend but life partner that is shared with only him.

This is what I dont understand.

What affirmation dis you make to eachother?

Seems like you miss out alot on the pair bond experience when you invite others into your relationship. I just find theres something special about having a one and only, a person who is not only my love my friend but life partner that is shared with only him.

Dragnheart, we affirmed that we wanted to build a life together, and we're doing that.

There absolutely can be something special about having a one and only. There's nothing wrong with monogamy as a relationship choice. I think there are healthy and unhealthy ways to do it, just as there are in polyamory. I have nothing against monogamy- I have issues with unhealthy relationships in general.

We believe that first of all- we aren't inviting others into our relationship. That is couples privilege thinking. Every relationship is unique and its own dyad. Even a triad is not a couple plus one; it's A + B, A + C, B + C, and A + B + C- four separate relationships!

And second of all, we believe in AND not OR. So we don't feel that because something is scarce that is has to be more valuable by definition. My love with DH is just as special and unique as my love with DBF, and both are very different.

To you, that would be missing out on something special because you want to be the one and only, and that's okay. To me, I feel like my love just gets multiplied in a way that I couldn't even imagine before I experienced. More love doesn't make it cheaper or less special. If anything, the biggest issues are logistical ones!

I'm not missing out on pair bonds in any way. I don't actually believe this, but I could theoretically say I have more experience with pair bonds, since I have two :)

To us, it's almost exactly the same thing as having multiple children, because love multiplies the same way. Having two children doesn't make your love for the first one any less special and unique. It just means you have less time for that child one on one. I know you won't see it the same way, but that's how it is for us.

[This message edited by PSTI at 5:59 PM, January 2nd (Thursday)]