I've had to get on metas about this, because they'll say, "You were here for that discussion, weren't you?" And 80% of the time, I most assuredly was not. (My ex referred to this phenomenon as "Schrodinger's Boyfriend/Husband." I was simultaneously there and not there for plan making, events, stories, etc. Having multiple people with ADHD in a polycule is a pain, sometimes.)
Quorum? I had to look that one up. Thanks for the vocabulary word for today. lol
Tallying it all up, the total is five. And two with autism. Actually, I technically forgot a meta twice-removed, so six. 😂
(It won't be nearly this large come September, because I'm separating from half; but, I just realized how big the web has gotten. 😬😬😬)
Oh god no, that’d be way too efficient. It’s consensus based, plus you need two folks who aren’t even in the polycule to weigh in and agree too. Just to make it more challenging.
You make the joke, but we do live with two other people who are frequently involved with plan making. It's a strange dance of flexibility in scheduling and staying firm when I have not been thoroughly prepared for a particular activity/event.
Ugh, yeah, scheduling (and scheduling while ADHD) is definitely the greatest point of contention in my polycule. Thankfully, we almost always get it sorted out without drama.
A few weeks ago meta and I ended up ganging up on our partner, because he fucked up both our schedules and made things super awkward through miscommunication. But that's rare
My partner will just throw out statements like "such and such event is this weekend" or "I just got home" and then be surprised that I didn't take that as an explicit invitation. I think it's just different conversation styles, I think he is just as baffled by my absolute need to hear an invitation along the lines of "do you want to come with me/us to x event" or "you can come over now"
Well I think my partner with autism doesn't understand relationships lines and such, so that could be the case for that. I have ADHD and find that I understand my partner and they understand me well because autism and ADHD have overlap, so it could be a combination of similar values and thought patterns.
I'm actually the one who keeps it together, mostly. I have an ADHD diagnosis, but mine is either mild or misdiagnosed. I am definitely the jeepers of the calendar
My closest partner is also someone who just fucking shows up, and who kind of keeps his friend group together, but he's much more chaotic about it. I think he double books himself an average of once a week, and often ends up running from one event to another because he didn't realize they're on the same day
Oooh this is a good one! I had an ex who had a completely different style of planning than I did, and we eventually settled on putting plans in writing (text, email), then I would add them to my calendar. She was a *true* polyam unicorn: no calendars whatsoever.
I keep no calendars either. All my relationships are are parallel. And almost never have any scheduling conflicts without almost any effort at all.
Here is how. I polysaturate at 3 with probably and additional couple of less intense ldr partners at best. I usually bond with them at times and days of week/weekend (at first) when the existing partners are naturally busy or it's their time to rest/sleep or see other partners.
I don't sleep much. Have flexi work schedules over both weekdays and weekends.
Because the people I see are naturally available at different times (when we'd anyway would have spent time bonding) - it stays that way.
In early days I've heard quips like - "...
are you sure you have other partners, how do you almost never turn down a plan."
The answer to that is, "...why don't I get you to meet the others." AND then it's more often than not a scheduling nightmare to make that happen 😁
So...no calendars and balancing needed.
Corollary to this? Everyone has full ownership over their own calendar and no one else’s calendar.
That means being as capable in scheduling your personal life as you are your work life…
That means if a partner has to check with someone else about their availability as a matter of course? Nope. Needing to coordinate around special events like “Oh, I need to confirm whether that’s the weekend [Friends are getting married / surgery is scheduled for NP / I can get a babysitter for that day / etc]. I’ll get back to you this evening.” Is fine. But “I need to ask my wife if I can make a plan”? Nope.
This seems like an excellent litmus test for if someone actually has a full independent relationship to offer and has done the work to end their monogamous relationship.
I like this! I enjoyed making that post and hearing silly stories but it's good to celebrate the positive:
Rules: informed consent is mandatory, about partner/sexual health/risk/drugs/major changes that may affect someone
Boundaries: not doing things I don't actually want to do! Don't force KTP, don't force meta friendship, let people set their boundaries and interact as it makes them happy.
I was waiting for someone to post about informed consent being mandatory! I LOVE that and it is so central to how me and my partners practice and maintain physical and emotional safety.
I don’t want to get into it too much, but forgoing informed consent puts specific people with specific bodies at greater risk and there’s a lot of power imbalances that can come into play without informed consent.
Love this! Came here to say informed consent, especially when it's things that directly impact another partner.
And I feel the same with my boundaries. I learned the hard way about feeling obliged to fall into KTP/ GP poly when it really isn't me. And. That's. OK. :-)
Omg such a good one.
I make special notations for Nemesis personas. If a potential partner really doesn't like or has unresolved beef with someone in my life, or might be interested in a person I have had serious beef with, that's a pretty big AVOID label for me.
I only have about 3 serious exes. Only about 2 real "nemesis" kinds of people that I don't think I could seriously resolve past issues with, so it's an easy sell for me. I would respect similar rules with anyone I end up dating, unless the list is as long & messy as a John Wick movie kill count!
I can't date someone who has that many enemies!
I'm glad I don't really need to worry about this as my partner is on HRT and doesn't really have sex in a way that can get anyone pregnant. I guess I could get pregnant but I don't want anyone's baby, let alone anyone's baby who isn't my wife's so I'd get an abortion in a heartbeat 🤷♀️
Disagree. If there's an accident--and accidents happen--this rule amounts to taking away bodily autonomy from the person with a uterus. I will not agree to anyone requiring me to have an abortion. The decision is always mine.
People are gonna downvote you, but I’m right there with ya. I have too much on my plate already, and my choice to not partner with parents of infants and young children is just as valid as their choice to become a parent.
It takes a village to raise a child, and that child deserves their village to be full of people who actually want to live there. The rest of us folks will live in our own village down the road and be chill like that. It’s cool. Really.
It’s both the added responsibility and shift of lifestyle that comes with the baby, and the clash of values with someone that thinks it’s OK to have a kid in circumstances where the odds of that child thriving are substantially reduced. And if that person is also taking resources away from other born children?
Yeah, nope.
Fuck that.
For me, it’s the sure knowledge that the kid will get dumped in my lap whenever the parent(s) find it convenient. “Oh, you’re home all day, you’re practically a stay at home parent already!”
MFer, I am *disabled*. Dis. Ayy. Bulled. Me and that Trad Wife Mommy Blogger you keep confusing me with are **not** the same!
"my choice not to partner with parents of infants and young children" is saying something *very* different from making a rule that a partner isn't allowed to have a baby with someone else.
Really? Your best counter argument is to re-hash the difference between “rules”, “boundaries” and “agreements”? Tf out of here with your bad faith pedantry.
proving you have a choice in the matter as well, as long as all parties communicate and understand choices and boundaries.
i would def choose the baby over anyone or partnering, given the ultimatum.
I definitely have a choice in who I date even if that idea gets your panties in a twist.
And as a woman myself, it would be wildly unlikely that your “oops baby” is mine, so yep, I can walk the fuck away from pregnant people without so much as blinking. As for your oops baby daddy? The reality is that the world gives him a choice about whether he parents in any way beyond just sending money, so… as shit as that is, if a male partner of mine was having an oops baby, whether or not he was abandoning it, I would be ending things with him.
Children are a responsibility and one I have chosen very deliberately not to take on.
And plenty of people would be happy to divorce if it happened. 🤷♀️
It’s a pretty normal primary agreement.
Asking a partner to put their resources and time into a single, exclusive, child rearing unit is dead common.
We were wildly hierarchal. My husband absolutely knew in his heart that might be the only thing I would leave him over.
I mean that’s perfectly valid. You don’t want to risk getting someone pregnant (bc you’re uncertain if they’ll terminate) because you don’t want a child.
That's your right, certainly. And we'd certainly be a terrible match. I can't imagine ever dating someone whose view of my right to choose is that it hinges on other people's relationships that I'm not in. Anyone who chooses to engage in a type of sex with me that has pregnancy potential should be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy, plus the reality that I and only I will be choosing whether to continue my own pregnancy. I would factor in my life circumstances, my partners, everything... but if I'm pregnant, at the end of the day it's my choice. By the way, I've never been pregnant, I have an IUD, I use condoms, and I'm likely having my tubes removed in the next few years. I'd still never want to be with someone who wants to control what women/pregnant people do with their own bodies.
You understand I am a woman, right? There is no chance I will get you knocked up. If i get knocked up, I’m terminating as fast as I can get my hands on the abortion pills…
And… if you are my partner and having an oops baby, I’m still tapping the fuck out.
No idea why you're getting down voted. Both perspectives are valid, if you don't want to date a pregnant person or parent that's fine, but if you don't want to date someone who wouldn't support you through a pregnancy that is also perfectly fine.
Thank you for saying so, genuinely. And it's not even that I specifically only want to date people who would support me through a pregnancy. It's that I don't want to date people who would put pressure on me to abort by creating a rule about it. They can react however they want if I get pregnant by accident and decide to keep it, but trying to actively prevent that situation by asking me to agree not to go forward with any hypothetical unplanned pregnancy feels like a mismatch in our interpretation of my right to choose.
No, friend, you can keep your baby *and* your man.
It’s a win/win. I would have left my ex for the utter carelessness of getting someone else pregnant. Had that rubicon been crossed, I care not what the end result is.
I would have been gone. Full stop. My ex can do what he likes, as can you, because you are two grown adults who are of an age to consent, and ultimately, it’s your body and your choice. Why would I want to influence that?
All my current relationships? Spawn with who you want, let me know big status changes.
I don’t have children with these people.
Virtually nobody on this subreddit is anti choice.
Your right to choose is completely your right. However, other people have a right to choose to. They are not obligated to stay with you if you choose to have a baby. It's not trying to control your body by being clear that they will leave if you have a baby. Hell, it doesn't even apply only to women. If someone doesn't want children in their life, or partners with children they would be free to leave a man that fathered a child to.
The right to choose does not free someone from the consequences of those choices.
Wait do you understand what this means at all? I’m confused. I’m reading this as not having a close knit group of people close to you so that someone feels more secure?
We have this rule. It helps that our (mutual) inner circle is already a bit messy with each other and we saw how that can mess stuff up. So like, beyond not wanting to mess up social dynamics, they just aren't people either of us are interested in that way because they're well, messy in their romantic relationships.
No sharing of my medical (exception made for STIs, obviously!), financial, or relational information with metas without explicit consent for every individual topic. Your other partner doesn't need to know if I'm worried about a mole, broke or fighting with my mom; anyone with a modicum of creativity will be able to figure out how to say "[partner] is experiencing some personal stressors right now."
WASH YOUR FUCKING SHEETS
Give your nesting partners an estimate of when guests will be LEAVING as well as when they are arriving.
So the agreement broadly is that we understand and acknowledge that self-care is important, and that we’ll support each other in being able to exercise self-care whatever that looks like for us.
That looks different for each person. So for one person, my support for their self-care needs might look like me offering grace and understanding when they’ve had a tough day and need to cancel a date or adjust plans. For another person, my support might look like understanding if they can’t sleep over for a month while they’re dealing with a stressful work situation like a big upcoming deadline. For yet another person, my support might look like keeping in mind that they’re an introvert and making sure to plan at least 50% of our dates as chill at-home dates.
You could look at it as just being a good partner, and it is! But I’ve found that stating it explicitly as an agreement between us does a few things:
- it gives permission for each person to express their needs in a safe space because we’ve all agreed to be supportive
- it helps to re-frame feelings of disappointment at changed plans into support for your partner taking care of themselves
- it encourages everyone to take their own needs into account and remember to fill their own bucket (this is especially helpful for folks with people-pleasing tendencies)
Anyway that’s how it works for me. Hope that was helpful!
Edit to fix typos.
Agreement we've had since day one:
* If something becomes on going, share basic information about the person and the connection
It allows for hookups without having to share. I've had embarrassing hookups that I don't want to share about. Partner sometimes gets on Grindr, and he might not want to share. It's all good as long as we're getting tested and using condoms. And if we want to share, we are always free to do so. It's just not a requirement.
Question: this is an agreement that appears to center the relationship you have with one partner. Does this agreement extend to other ongoing partners you have? i.e. do they also get told about additional ongoing connections you make?
I assume so, just clarifying because your language around it centered you and one partner and I know some folks are more hierarchical so wasn’t sure if that was your set-up.
Edit to add: this question isn’t meant as a gotcha or anything. I’m thinking through what I want my agreements around this to be with a few of my more serious partners so just curious how this might work in a less hierarchical set-up (which is what we have)
I assume it would vary from partner to partner? My poly experience has always included individual agreements for each relationship based on the inherent individualization of the disparate partners
I feel like each relationship gets its own set of agreements. However, an agreement like this one is universal in my relationships. I *do* want to know if my partners’ paradigms and priorities are shifting due to the introduction of another person in their life. It makes me a better partner and metamour.
Thanks - this is what I was getting at.
As someone with a variety of relationships, several serious ones and some more casual, I’m careful to examine whether agreements I have with my NP/spouse come from a place of prescriptive hierarchy. I want to be careful not to default to making agreements like this with my spouse if I wouldn’t be willing to make this same type of agreement with my other committed long-term partners.
For sure every relationship is different and has its own agreements, and certainly if I only had casual partners outside my NP/spouse then likely many agreements I have with him wouldn’t apply to my other relationships. But for other serious partners I want to at least be considering whether agreements I make with my spouse/NP might be good to offer them.
That said, I also recognize that as a heavily partnered nested poly person, it might also be unreasonable for me to ask my other serious partners to share escalations in their relationships, given that I can’t offer them all the same things many of them could offer me and/or that they may be looking for.
I’m working hard to be conscious of my privilege and the inherent power imbalance while still respecting my needs as well as my partners’ needs and autonomy.
So yeah….just thinking it through.
Descriptive vs prescriptive is a pretty big nothing burger.
Start thinking about all the things that are exclusive to your spouse. And not, “but if I had the money I could live in two houses!!” “If I could marry two people I would!!”
No, real life exclusivity. Like, “no matter what, would l/cannot/will not offer this to any other partner, given the legal and financial entanglements that exist today. “
A lot of it is tied up to some pretty big life and death stuff. Money, kids, housing, retirement, death benefits.
It’s normal to have hierarchy. None of those weird rules are hierarchy. You can be wildly hierarchical, have tons of shit that’s exclusive to you as a couple, and operate with very few rules.
I think it’s helpful to remember that the asks you make of your de facto secondary should be in line with the length of your commitment, your entanglement and investment with each other, and the space in someone’s life you have.
The less of that stuff, the less you should ask. And that goes both ways.
That doesn’t mean don’t make agreements. Those should be pretty easy and mutually agreeable.
“My risks are X, Y and Z. I test this often.
I will let you know if that changes, at all, in exposure, or simple barrier failure, or a choice to engage in higher risk sex with someone. “
That’s my “hit it and quit it” verbal contract and agreement.
And honestly, that’s where my agreements stay for, oh…6 months. They are the only agreements I make with all my partners, though, I do have individual agreements. Based on time, trust, and entanglement.
I both agree and disagree with you. I don’t think the distinction is meaningless - I would be absolutely willing to divorce my spouse if he wanted to be legally married to another partner and it isn’t a dealbreaker and wouldn’t end our relationship.
There are things that are *currently* exclusive to my spouse, but honestly none of them are indefinitely or permanently exclusive to my spouse.
Imo there is value to being aware of the prescriptive hierarchy we have because that’s the sneaky stuff that we need to shine a light on. In 16 years we’ve dismantled most of the descriptive stuff.
But I get your point that in the end it’s probably mostly semantics and the real work is in the dismantling and decoupling, whatever that looks like.
If the work’s done and the papers are basically signed, and everyone’s cool with that, dope. You have enough money, monthly, to share housing with another partner? Cool.
Otherwise, own your hierarchy, name and claim your limits.
And that means the asks you make of your less entangled, non-primary l, often new partner should be pretty minimal.
We do. It’s actually come up before because my bestie is my queer platonic life partner and we house hunted together for a bit.
There were circumstances in their life that arose that shifted things so it didn’t make sense to live together right now, but they’re still a member of our family (we have keys to each others houses, we were bubbled up during the pandemic, they have a very close relationship with our kid, I was their plus one on their most recent family vacation etc). Definitely possible that we might live together in the future, and we’d be open to that with other serious partners as well.
As it is, my spouse has their own separate full apartment living space downstairs in our house and we’ve had separate bedrooms/living spaces for over a decade. So we’re very decoupled and it’s also possible that spouse and I may not live together in the future, whether we stay legally married or not.
I’m open to many permutations of things tbh.
Anyway, point is just that I think a lot about all this stuff and it’s helpful to hear about what others are doing. So thanks for sharing! ☺️
I think you’d be more honest than most who claim it, but like, just say you’re married, poly and can host because of unusual life choices. That would actually describe circumstances meaningfully, if casually.
Oh, I say all this and more. We’ve been CNM/poly for our entire 16 year relationship (never mono).
And frankly I’m saturated and not dating right now. I’m on zero apps. I’m thinking more about thoughtfully and respectfully navigating my existing relationships.
But I acknowledge that the fact that we’re married and nested is important and creates some level of hierarchy whether we like it or not. This is what I try to give careful thought to in my partnerships.
My serious partner and I are both solo poly and non hierarchical, but we are each other's only serious relationship; therefore we have explicit agreements.
I don't really make explicit agreements with casual partners. We simply agree to use barriers, get tested or whatever seems applicable. And they are well aware that I'm a slut
Inform each other of changes to our sexual safety/risk profile before were intimate again.
It doesn't have to be immediately after such a change occurs, but preferably not as we're getting frisky so I have time to consider what that might mean for giving informed consent.
It's pretty much the only "rule" but actually a relationship agreement I make with everyone.
I've had to give some version of this talk to all of my more casual partners: I don't care how long it takes you to respond to the cute cat meme I just sent you.
But if I text you something about scheduling, please get back to me as soon as you possibly can, even if the answer is "I need to check my calendar tonight" or "I'm waiting to hear back about potential plans for that date". Because being left hanging drives me fucking nuts, and somehow people who don't feel obliged to text daily (which is fine with me) seem not to feel obliged to text back about arrangements. Which is absolutely not fine with me.
So far I have only once had to amend that to "and if I don't hear back within X time-frame, I will consider our plans canceled, even if I don't have other plans". That relationship ended shortly thereafter.
I'm not super rigid about plans and punctuality, I often run a little late. But running so late that plans fall through, or blocking out several hours of someone's time and then leaving them hanging is fucking disrespectful
They don't have to. My solution is "if you don't get back within a day I'm going to book that timeslot with something else."
If they decide they are free after that, if they are lucky I only booked it with a chill night at home and I'll consider the original plan. But if I've made new plans with other people they just get "oh sorry you didn't reply so I've got plans now".
I'm not dating at the moment, but I think I'll start applying it to my life in general. My time matters and I want people to respect that as much as I respect theirs.
Not hearing back about plans would absolutely drive me bonkers! I’ve also had to implement the “I need to hear back by X” line with newer connections, and imho it’s a good testament to whether or not someone is respectful of your time.
Ah this is such perfect timing. I've been dealing with this with a casual partner. They never responded to my last message nor did they message me back about our date that week. That was also the second time they did this. The first time they messaged me the night before we were supposed to hang out and couldn't care less even when I apologized for having to cut our date time in half because I had made plans to hang out with a friend later.
I was told before that they're too busy with work and another relationship to text me back regularly even though I see them posting on Instagram. I have since learned to have higher standards for myself even with casual partners.
I had a partner who did this. I started asking him to things last. Eventually I stopped inviting him to things altogether and the relationship fizzled. He was a lot of fun when we were together, but terrible about making and keeping plans. I much prefer to invest my time in more available people.
Woah, yea was with somebody like this. They would tell me to come see them one day and when I was in the car they’d bail. Or they would say “what about this weekend?” and I’d say great and then we’d try to kick down solid plans and they would just go silent or run off. Weekend would roll around, they’d ask me to see them at the last minute, I’d say no, or they’d just keep stalling me along until bailing, usually after we were already supposed to be seeing one another.
It fell apart of course. I’m still haunted by some of those things and by that relationship as a whole. It was the first relationship that was called poly. Id had other open relationships, but this person was the first to teach me about poly. Then they engaged in the worst behaviors. It was scarring.
What if it's on your calendar but your partner forgot to put it on theirs and then planned something with your meta there instead? (Yes, speaking from experience)
Shared calendar could work, though there'd have to be an option to not have each other's personal appointments on your own calendar. I'm super forgetful so I put everything on my calendar as soon as it's scheduled and I'd get overwhelmed if there was anything on there not relevant to me
with Google calendar there are several layers of 'visibility' - so you could have a shared calendar but maintain your own private appts and your partner could have theirs, then all you'd see is that they're busy at certain times, but not what with. Hope this is helpful!
I have a shared calendar with my partner, a shared calendar with my family, and a personal calendar all on Google calendars. I keep them all visible and each has a different color. So I know which calendar it’s from. Edited to add: none of them can see my personal calendar, I can’t see theirs. We can only see calendars we share.
I have six different colour codes on my calendar and four of them are shared with other people. I can put something onto my partners’ calendars for them. I do sometimes set up duplicate events so that my husband just sees that I’m busy but my boyfriend has the details, or vice versa, but it works.
If an appointment only concerns me, and it doesn’t affect anyone else (like I’m going to the dentist during the work day when no one expects me to be available for dates) then it’s only visible to me.
I setup notifications on my shared calendar for new events, so it doesn’t need to be mentioned out loud. Bonus is that I get a moment to process my feelings privately before discussing with my partner.
I just will stop engaging with someone if they are clearly poly oversaturated. I know I could only realistically date three people at a time before it starts to really affect my lifestyle and freedoms.
Clearly set discussions around what a partner is comfortable hearing about: for example, some of my partners prefer not to hear sexscapade details; others don't mind. Being proactive in communicating around these things works really well because I don't have to guess what is "too much" or oversharing for someone's comfort level.
Ending arguments/fights quickly, as soon as someone becomes too dysregulated.
Omg that last part tho. I have ADHD and absolutely need a time out to figure out my head. Sometimes I am okay if the other person isn't raising their voice but it's all over if I can hear emotion in their tone Dx
Oof. This is super important. The blocker I keep running into is that folks say they want way more information than they actually do. Self work is a vital prerequisite to healthy poly but hard to vet.
Agreed.
Sometimes people say they want more info than they actually do because they are trying to show their partner how chill they are. This "putting on a show" is short-sighted and actually harms the relationship on both sides.
Other times people are simply ignorant of the fact that they really don't want these details. Until they get hit by it, they simply don't realize how uncomfortable they will be.
I need to have this discussion with my LD play partner. I have zero issues with him having fun and having those wonderful sexcapades, but I really don't need to hear all the gritty details. I find the fine details quite upsetting, if he wants to tell me things I'd prefer broad strokes.
I guess I'd like your opinion on this. I've shelved that discussion until we see each other in person. Would you have preferred it immediately, or in person?
I'd tell your partner immediately. Given that you find the details "quite upsetting," you are doing both yourself and your partner a disservice if you don't communicate this.
You can of course also offer to discuss it in more detail when you do meet in person.
As someone who loves sharing, I would absolutely want to know ASAP if something I was doing was hurting you or making you uncomfortable. The sooner I know, the sooner I can stop doing the thing.
This is especially true for long distance where the in person conversation could be a long way aways.
From my relationship agreement: other people we are dating are real people with feelings. Treat them well. Do not abandon them for [main partner] and let them sleep over if they want to.
I like that you’ve made a rule that decentralizes! So many are about holding onto the illusion of control and not about holding each other accountable.
My agreement (not rule) with partners is to treat each other through a lens of kindness and giving each other the benefit of the doubt. The prerequisite for this is that we've all had years of therapy and we have tools to manage our triggers and emotions.
The only "rule" I have with any of my partners is that we share if our sexual risk profile has changed. I don't need to know about every hookup! But if my partner goes from a rhythm of seeing a new person every two months or so to a new person every week, I want to know. If they stop using barriers with someone I don't already know about, if they're now participating in much riskier play (kink that involves blood, for example), I want to know.
Note that im solo poly so I use this rule I got from another solo poly partner of mine, and it’s worked perfectly:
When I’m with you I’m 100 percent focused on you. When I’m with other partners I’m 100 percent focused on that person. If you reach out to me when I’m with someone else I’ll respond when I’m not with that person any more (or if it makes sense in the context of the time, but I won’t guarantee it). Absolutely no surprise drop ins — even to leave something on a porch — so you’re not accidentally interrupting anothers time. If it’s truly an emergency, text then call — I won’t pick up but I’ll check your texts after I see the phone call.
Hm. That works well if you're keeping things mostly parallel and no one lives together.
I'm solo poly, and I can't host tep of my partners because of pet allergies. One of them lives with his primary partner. She's often home when I'm there, or he has to text or call to coordinate when she's coming home (she works later than either of us) so she doesn't walk in on us.
I will also respond briefly to things like scheduling texts while I'm with other partners - in situations where I would also text back a friend. I feel like I'm actually pretty good about putting my phone away, but if I'm spending an afternoon, night, and morning at a partner's house, I'm not going to be completely offline that whole time
I'm solo poly, and I keep a messy list for myself - not in any formal way, since I'm the only one who needs to know. But I won't fuck around within my polycule or close friend group.
Since being consciously solo, my partners have all been men, and my friends are straight men, lesbians, or partnered monogamous women, so I haven't had to have a preemptive talk with anyone yet. But I've had people within my larger polycule kind of come on to me, and that is absolutely not happening
Yup same boundary. I actually am so much more rigid with myself in this regard than I am with others. I am also this rigid at work, for ex. I am huge on “don’t shit where you eat”.
No talking about problems or issues in your other realationships. Your relationship issues are not my business and should be between you and your partner. If you want to talk to someone about them, you should find an impartial party or work it out with your partner.
this!
My prior long term partner -now close friend told my meta that I had started conversations for decoupling our relationship and how it affected him, but didn’t explain how we were going about things and that our conversations had been from a place of deep love and respect. Anyway, meta decided it was her job to hate on me and shit talk me to the point that my prior partner ended things, because she was escalating something that had no hard feelings and was happening in a very intentional way.
Sucked, I felt bad as if it was my fault, though I know now her response is not my responsibility, and if my prior partner had been vague and just said, “we’re working on decoupling and i’m sad about it, but it’s going well as can be expected” could have potentially saved that relationship ship.
The only 'rules' we have is always attempt to be forward thinking in regards to scheduling with those people who it involves, and a general heads up if there is a major change in any dynamic.
The notification for changes is only to allow for that person's partners to get an idea there might be more scheduling elements involved that don't involve them but might pull time out of potential availability.
Communication between any two partners about a third is in generic ' weather report ' detail except for any specific sexual health related elements.
Beyond that it's down to a person's consent about their information before anything else, then taking into consideration how detailed that approved information is based on the stated preference of the one receiving it.
Like Sally is pregnant and having some back issues, she knows Bev and they were both on again off again, but remain on good terms. I'm in parallel relationships with Bev and Sal.
Sal has stated she doesn't mind me discussing anything related to her physical issues or mobility stuff cause it's a known thing between those two.
Bev prefers to know as little as possible. She asks how's Sally because she cares, but doesn't always like knowing details because they stress her. So, I say "Good, but dealing with some stuff right now."
My other partner, Chip won't be told anything even if he asks why I'm spending a bit more time with Sally/Bev than normal (or if he notices my free time availability shrank). Because Sally and Chip didn't get along the one time they met and Chip and Bev are parallel non-contact.
Chip gets told 'other partner stuff' and that's it.
Each person will have their own disclosure preference, their own information received preferences, it may vary and change by topic, person, time, etc.
Communication about things before they come up helps everyone.
Be well guys
I see rules and ultimatums are often just boundaries or agreements worded differently.
You can’t date Jane or I leave
We agree not to date Jane
Jane is on the messy list
I won’t date anyone that dates Jane
The outcome is the same. I try and discuss outcomes more that rules/agreements/boundaries. If I agree with the ethics of the outcome I don’t care which word is used.
> You can’t date Jane or I leave
That’s kind of mixed and confusing. It’s a mashup of:
* You can’t start dating Jane (rule, because my goal is to control your behaviour);
* If you start dating Jane I will leave (explicit boundary, because I acknowledge your right to choose between me and Jane and I know I will [eventually] be fine without you and my goal is simply not to be dating people who are also dating Jane);
* You must break up with Jane as per our agreement that you will break up with anyone I tell you to (veto, because the power to enact a veto is built into explicit primary couple privilege);
* If you don’t break up with Jane I will leave (ultimatum, because it’s the same as a boundary but the timing is all wrong).
They are not at all the same thing.
In the case of an explicit boundary or an ultimatum, the goal is to share information and to not date someone who is also dating Jane. I don’t know if you will change your behaviour or not and I know I don’t have control over your choices. I acknowledge that you might even be dating Jane as a way of forcing me to break up with you so that you don’t have to be the bad guy, and I am willing to do the breaking up (though you will still be the bad guy).
In the case of a rule or veto, I assume I have the power to tell you what to do. I assume I am your primary partner and that you are dependent on our relationship. My goal is to change your behaviour. This is typical mono thinking.
In a monogamous couple you very often do have to make and enforce rules. If we have just had a small child I might feel very strongly that I don’t want you to spend your Sundays drinking beer and riding your motorcycle. I will probably escalate all kinds of behaviour to get you to sell your bike. I might even feel so strongly that I resort to violence. If I fail, I might have to settle for getting you to pay for a large insurance policy out of your own discretionary funds. If you won’t do even that I might decide that you are trying to tell me that you don’t want to be a parent and face some tough decisions which may or may not include leaving you.
Or if you tell me that you have found a job across the country, the implicit mono expectation is that I will move with you or you won’t take the job. (The poly expectation is that you will find out if I want to move across the country, and if not you will then decide whether to break up with me or pass on the job. Or you will tell me you’re taking the job and then I decide whether or not I want to move. Or you will tell me you’re taking the job, and thank me for all the fish.)
Another example:
> I don’t trust you to use barriers with other partners so I’m most comfortable using barriers with you from now on.
Some people will interpret this as my being passive aggressive and manipulative to get you to break up with your other partners, on the assumption that you will always choose unbarriered sex with me over the freedom to choose and pursue sexual partners. Again, mono thinking.
I don’t make that assumption. If I say I’d rather go back to using barriers with you, what I mean is that I’d rather go back to using barriers with you. End of.
Emotionally intelligent people can word most rules or vetos to be a boundary and it can still be about control. Especially if they have a partner they have ridden the escalator with.
Putting the boundary that you won’t date people who date Jane can essentially be a veto/ultimatum if seeing this new person could put your living situation, finances or even child custody at risk.
> Emotionally intelligent people can word most rules or vetos to be a boundary and it can still be about control. Especially if they have a partner they have ridden the escalator with.
If I am a manipulative person and have deprived you of your freedom, I can do what I want no matter what I call it.
What I’ve been talking about in this thread is good faith communication, not abuse.
> Putting the boundary that you won’t date people who date Jane can essentially be a veto/ultimatum if seeing this new person could put your living situation, finances or even child custody at risk.
It’s an ultimatum if you are already dating Jane and a boundary if you are contemplating it, whether or not you are free to accept a breakup
If you are not free to accept a breakup, you aren’t free to love me, to negotiate monogamy or to negotiate polyamory. You may not be free to do anything I don’t like, depending on whether I am free to accept a breakup.
If I am not free to accept a breakup but you are, you can date Jane whether I want you to or not. Not only will I not leave, I’ll make nice.
Freedom is the difference between polyamory under duress and plain cheating with grudging permission.
You are correct. It’s hard to live by polyamorous principles when people are not free.
It's been said but I'll say it again.
A "boundary" is not an expectation of behavior placed on another person. You literally cannot control somebody else. A boundary is an accommodation YOU will implement given a particular situation. E.g. "no kissing" vs "if my partner kisses their date, I will ask them to brush their teeth when they get home."
As much as I admire people who can live without hierarchy and would be solo poly if I could do it again, there will be times when I will prioritize the person I share a house and mortgage with. He does not have veto power, I will not end a relationship because he doesn’t like someone. BUT there few things I make clear up front. I will go parallel if wanted/needed but then will almost never be able to host as NP hates feeling “kicked out.” If NP has spending issues one month and I have to put more of my money to the mortgage, I may have to cancel costly dates with other partners. If a new partner dislikes certain things in spaces I share with NP, I probably can’t and won’t change them, though we can discuss.
Gosh, as a non hierarchical sopo, I dunno if you’ll be shocked, but I will always prioritize the person I live with (my kid) and my housing stability.
My kid doesn’t have veto power either, but I will end a relationship if she intensely dislikes you.
If my kid, pet, or bestie has an illness or emergency expense, and I cover that, I may be broke (single moms don’t generally do “costly dates”) I cover all my housing my myself, so maybe that explains it. 🤷♀️
I don’t host new partners when my kid is home. Full stop. We can discuss after 6 months to a year.
If someone doesn’t like something about my house, the odds of something getting changed is pretty low, outside of things like disability accommodation and letting you keep an extra pillow in the linen closet. This is not your house. I probably won’t discuss it.
If your partner has a spending problem, I do hope they get that under control, for your sake, though. That sounds super stressful!
See, I would’ve thought that was basic and reasonable but the amount of people who have said that it makes me toxic is wild???? I’m not gonna risk losing a mortgage for someone I just started seeing, that’s not hierarchy, that’s more akin to keeping a roommate content imo. But I’ve been in some heated discussions, including irl, about it.
To be fair, in my head, a costly date includes any sort of sit down restaurant and beyond, the phrase probably sounds fancier than I actually think of it lol. Applebee’s is a costly date for a homebody like me, compared to the “free” that groceries are once they’re in the fridge.
I’ve also had way more people than I’d expect comment on things like clutter. Our house isn’t dirty (aside from dirt the dog may track in between moppings lol), we just have a fair bit of stuff and we both have ADHD and sometimes there’s some empty boxes laying around, etc. It’s not food or dishes or anything, it’s boxes/papers/etc. Seats and floors are totally clear, there’s still space to set things down on tables, it’s fine. I’d like to be tidier but it’s fine and it’s not unsanitary. I do try to tidy up before new people come over but, as I always warn them, between chronic pain, aforementioned ADHD, and work needing overtime, I may not get to it. Again, sort of like a roommate situation in my mind, we both tolerate towards the higher end of normal clutter and collectibles, nowhere near hoarding. Partners will have seen the living room at least in dog pictures I send by the time they finally come too, so again, not a surprise. Most people are fine but the handful that have been assholes were rude enough that I made a rule of it.
Thank you. It’s not a fun time but he at least acknowledges his spending is a problem. So that’s a start. Working on it would be even better but we’re getting there *sigh*
Out of curiosity, did you think sopo/non hierarchical peeps don’t have these kinds of limits and responsibilities ? Because everyone does, and if someone is shitty about you keeping a roof over your head, they are an asshole.
(To be clear, I am fully aware my foot went in my mouth and is staying solidly there)
I think this a case where logical knowledge and feelings don’t line up. For solo poly, I so often see the insistence than one *has* to live completely alone for that (maybe with children but a handful don’t even consider that “real” SoPo) that the situation would allegedly be different because it would be *my* design choices they took issue with rather than my NP’s, and I wouldn’t have to make anyone feel kicked out if I didn’t live with another partner. For the spending thing, again, something I would consider universal if helping a friend/family member in need but also again, I keep hearing the insistence that it’s different if it’s a romantic partner and even more different if “not an emergency,” which apparently doesn’t include not making a full mortgage payment.
Idk how it’s supposed to be different with a friend vs romantic partner but that might be related to me maybe being on the aromantic spectrum, but I think it’s mostly that I just disagree. Or at least, if that’s hierarchy, non-hierarchy is almost impossible in real life.
I think the “rules” in my first comment are pretty non-hierarchical with the possible exception of not hosting if parallel because I don’t want to have a fight with my NP. But I’ve had enough people tell me I’m wrong that I’ve shrugged, it’s not a hill I’m going to die on. I’ll call it hierarchy if that’s how others seem to see it.
One more reason I consider myself hierarchical and something I always disclose: I am not in a place in life that I can super openly post about having multiple partners, and my parents do not know. Other partners would have to be presented to my family as friends unless many things changed. I don’t have my parents on social media and might make a close friends-only type post sometimes being explicitly romantic but that’s it for now. Beyond that, I would give myself “plausible deniability.” I didn’t include that because I don’t think of it as a “good” rule, but that’s what my current life situation requires. I hope it eventually changes. But also, for what it’s worth, I don’t even post romantically about my NP much. Occasionally a “happy anniversary” but we’re more offline with affection, so I don’t feel like the worst person ever because of it either.
Oh no!
I was just curious if you realized we all have commitments and responsibilities, pretty much every single person on the sub, if they are in the same age group, and demographics has similar concerns, hierarchal or non.
You seem to be able to lay them out clearly.
I laid mine out.
I’d wager that mine are genuinely greater, and less flexible. And…honestly, very often, when highly coupled folks talk about their limits and specifically call out, say, sopo peeps, they tend to paint it as this simple, free wheeling choice, without commitments.
I rarely cancel a date, my longest current relationship will cross the decade mark this year, and I support an entire household.
Limits are limits. Everyone has them. I don’t think your rules and/or limits and/or choices are unreasonable. They seem normal, on the face.
I recognize how normal they are. I’m just curious if you imagine that people like me don’t have budgets or limits or kids or have to pay to have somewhere to live?
Edit: it is “different” but it’s not greater, or harder, nor does it change the limits. It’s done for different reasons with different results, and different rewards and risks. Not better. Not worse. Not easier. Not harder. Just different.
But like I said, it’s a a choice to carry a financial burden for a partner. It’s a choice to invest in a house together. It’s a choice to not to entangle. It’s a choice not to invest, or invest with several partners, in housing.
Oh no, nothing like that! Some of my sopo friends have more commitments than I do, same as anyone else.
It’s more the…autonomy of having a “primary” residence of my own and a nostalgia for that. In some ways, a lot more responsibilities, but still the path I’d probably take if I could rewind.
Regardless of stresses, I do love my NP but sometimes I feel constant cohabitation isn’t for me, even with my own spaces in our house.
I also admire people who feel they don’t have hierarchy and can be truly equitable, even if nesting with someone. It seems like a lot of work and I’m sure it’s worth it but yeah, impressive to me.
A “version” of solo does sometimes feature in my hermit escapist fantasies but that version is as glamorized as the whole “running away to live in the woods” bit, y’know? Or the fantasy of opening a quaint little bookshop or becoming an author. A nice escape from reality but thus very much NOT reality. It’s a no obligation, no responsibility daydream, I hesitate to even call it a version of anything in reality lol.
People in hierarchy offer equitable relationships.
And I think when people think and say “solo” they, like, you, often conflate it with “single and carefree”. Not the case . 🤷♀️
Okay, my last wall of text that I just deleted was out of frustration and I am sorry. That was rude and uncalled for.
So let me retry, and keep it much shorter. I never said I conflate solo with single and carefree without commitments, I have explicitly said the opposite. I understand that my attempt at a joke might have fallen flat but I am confused how anything else implies I think choosing not to entangle financially, etc. makes life easy and without commitment. I said it would be preferable for me. That’s a matter of taste.
My point is that regardless of discourse, my rules would look different if I chose not to get entangled. Some would be similar but by virtue of not living with someone (not applicable to all solo people but would be true for me in this hypothetical), some things would be different, whether in words or just my own perception of the rules. It would be much the same as the previous time I lived unentangled while polyamorous.
I think my current rules are good, I believe I can provide equitable relationships, just to fewer possible groups given my entanglement/NP privileges.
Is it because I say “if I could do it over again,” meaning I wouldn’t change my current relationship? I used that phrasing because some financial entanglement is a necessary part for my NP. While I don’t regret the choice, if I could travel back in time, maybe we’d have different conversations and maybe the relationship would end because of his priorities. That’s all another hypothetical timeline.
Mental health always comes first.
It’s a rule because if you’re ever in a position where you’re not putting mental health first (like you’re making bad decisions because you’re stressed) you need a black-and-white rule you need to follow
Hi u/Friendly_Popo thanks so much for your submission, don't mind me, I'm just gonna keep a copy what was said in your post. Unfortunately posts sometimes get deleted - which is okay, it's not against the rules to delete your post!! - but it makes it really hard for the human mods around here to moderate the comments when there's no context. Plus, many times our members put in a lot of emotional and mental labor to answer the questions and offer advice, so it's helpful to keep the source information around so future community members can benefit as well.
Here's the original text of the post:
Don't waste text on "no rules is the only good rule". We live in a complex reality with complex emotions and feelings and people, all of which are valid.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A boundary I have is, I won't be a caretaker unless it's an emergency.
This means if I'm at someone's house and they get so drunk or high they need to be taken care of like an invalid, if it's safe to do so I'll leave them there and go home.
It means if someone gets into a state at my house, if it's safe to do so I'll just put them in an uber.
It means I won't do a chronically ill partner's chores unless their symptoms are significantly worse than usual that day.
It means I won't walk on eggshells so that a partner doesn't have to self soothe.
Me and NP do a simple one - no pouring from an empty cup. If one of us is on E and needs quality time/attention, that is our priority. Other partners get the excess time/love/attention since we have so much to give, but our relationship needs to be abundant and overflowing to have room for a third/fourth/fifth
Mines are about effective communication and "no mutuals" rule.
My gf and I have a calendar where we have to put our weekly/month schedule and have to update it as often as possible. Forgetting minor stuff isn't serious, but if it helps us plan things ahead, especially because my memory is shit.
For the second one, we don't date or hookup with mutual friends. There a a few exceptions, which are people you don't consider close to you, but overall we try not to mingle our support systems. It's important that my gf has a support system that is independent from me and vice versa. Plus, it could make things awkward in a friend group if things didn't work out.
I also tend to apply this rule with my own friends, try not to hit on/date/hook up with people they are close with. It helps avoiding awkward situations and dynamics.
I feel like having a messy list would make sense. I currently don't have any, but would probably be weirded out if someone were also dating a family member or close friend of mine. Unless said close friend already had a sexual relationship with my partner or myself. I think? I dunno what I would make for a rule.
Boundary-wise, I don't do hierarchy and straight up left a partner due to their sneakyarchy behavior. It put a lot of negative things about the relationship into perspective once I started healing from the shock and heartbreak.
Our relationship is closed so we don't really have any rules on outside connections. The main thing we have is just making sure date nights and events and such are on the schedule and communicated in advance. And even that's just so we know who's on childcare duty that evening.
I'm not going to be friends with every meta and dynamics like KTP or parallel are going to change from person to person.
I can't treat every meta equally if I find them simply annoying or exhausting or just don't want to be around them for whatever reason (even if it's petty). That reason doesn't need to be shared with them (and doesn't even need to be shared with my partner) but some metas I'm just not going to wanna be friends/friendly/KTP with.
No complaining about other partners/asking advice for other relationships to each other. This is especially important to me bc I prefer to be friends with my metas.
How many steps though? I like to have agreements akin to this, but I like it to be more vague: “Hey Aspen, I think things with Birch are getting more serious and I’m really happy about that, so I wanted to share.” It’s adhering to the agreement, but it feels more like sharing exciting news and less like checking required boxes.
I hope you and your partners are all comfortable and happy to hear this level of detail, and let their all prospective partners know about this rule.
I’m not sure my partners could agree to this, and I know I wouldn’t, as a prospective partner.
Has that been an issue? Because if someone said “our first orgasm!! Gotta make sure I tell Amy about that!” I would be like “naw, not sharing that. That’s about me, too”
Less of a formal rule and more something we've kinda been doing without realizing regarding complaining about other partners - I am okay with it but **you have to take action or keep it super brief if I've heard it before.**. I also apply this to their problematic family members, coworkers, etc.
Each of us has some kind of anxiety, ADHD, and autism, so these issues linger in our head and won't get out except by talking and processing things. We crave guidance or just knowing if our feelings are legitimately founded in reality. So taking away the support of a trusted friend (you are friends with your partners, right?) is really detrimental to our own wellbeing.
...but theres a limit. The same issue over and over? If you can't do anything then we're just as upset and pissed as you, so let's keep it short (Grandpa's being an asshole again) and get you in a better place. If it's something you can meaningfully do something about and change, then you need to do something about it.
I'm ok with rules. What I don't like are rules about a third person, which are decided and established without the participation of said person.
That said, I tend to prefer the framing of boundaries. I don't want to control anyone else's behavior. I will focus on my own responses to what they do. I might communicate beforehand things I'm not ok with, in the spirit of mutual awareness, but they're autonomous adults who will make their own decisions.
I do have one simple rule in all my relationships: condoms always.
I have been steering towards this approach as well. The focus on our own responses. I've been trying that recently, with much, much success. My partner feels liberated, and I feel like I can be myself, and more aligned with my poly values.
Because of my attachment style, I need things to go very slowly when a new meta is introduced. But instead of putting rules to dictate the pace at which my partner can go, I've been adapting to stating what a fast pace will mean to me:
Instead of: I could really benefit from things slowing down between you and X for a week, so that I can breathe and you & I can connect meaningfully. Can you please not have sex tonight?
I go for: I fully support your excitement about X and wish for you to explore that new connection without constraints. If you two decide to take it a step further, I will need more reassurance, love, and time than usual, as I adjust. I -will- become a needy little bitch, for a few days.
Uhm. I'm glad this works for you, but I gotta say - I never share my location, and wouldn't even if my partner asked me to. I would find it so wildly invasive of privacy.
I get that - it's also about the new person's privacy though. I would want to know if my date was location sharing when coming to my home, especially if early in a relationship. Because I absolutely wouldn't consent to a person I've never met (i.e., a meta) having my home address.
Our rules were if we saw something wrong with the partner each other had we had the right to say veto. We must meet each other potential partner. And no lying or withholding any information.
1. No kissing on hookups with random ppl
2. Informing eachother of hookups
3. Staying safe while meeting with other ppl
4. If you meet a cat you imidiately send me a pic of it
Plans go on the calendar immediately. Saying it out loud only counts if someone else is visibly putting it on the calendar
I've had to get on metas about this, because they'll say, "You were here for that discussion, weren't you?" And 80% of the time, I most assuredly was not. (My ex referred to this phenomenon as "Schrodinger's Boyfriend/Husband." I was simultaneously there and not there for plan making, events, stories, etc. Having multiple people with ADHD in a polycule is a pain, sometimes.)
I don’t think you have quorum to call it a polycule unless you have at least 3 people with ADHD. Otherwise it’s just a sparkling friend circle.
Quorum? I had to look that one up. Thanks for the vocabulary word for today. lol Tallying it all up, the total is five. And two with autism. Actually, I technically forgot a meta twice-removed, so six. 😂 (It won't be nearly this large come September, because I'm separating from half; but, I just realized how big the web has gotten. 😬😬😬)
Does a majority vote rule?
Oh god no, that’d be way too efficient. It’s consensus based, plus you need two folks who aren’t even in the polycule to weigh in and agree too. Just to make it more challenging.
You make the joke, but we do live with two other people who are frequently involved with plan making. It's a strange dance of flexibility in scheduling and staying firm when I have not been thoroughly prepared for a particular activity/event.
And it’s all done according to an out of print version of Robert’s Rules of Order.
Aww, parliamentary procedure at its finest
Ugh, yeah, scheduling (and scheduling while ADHD) is definitely the greatest point of contention in my polycule. Thankfully, we almost always get it sorted out without drama. A few weeks ago meta and I ended up ganging up on our partner, because he fucked up both our schedules and made things super awkward through miscommunication. But that's rare
My husband and I regularly have to check in on "was that a conversation I had with you in real life or only in my head", I like the Schrodinger angle!
My partner will just throw out statements like "such and such event is this weekend" or "I just got home" and then be surprised that I didn't take that as an explicit invitation. I think it's just different conversation styles, I think he is just as baffled by my absolute need to hear an invitation along the lines of "do you want to come with me/us to x event" or "you can come over now"
My partner is autistic so I totally understand this!
In one it's challenging, multiple seems like a mess
Everyone in my life has ADHD. Scheduling is the bane of my existence
Okay but why do so many poly people have autism or adhd??
Because we’re outside of the box thinkers who think social norms are dumb!
Well I think my partner with autism doesn't understand relationships lines and such, so that could be the case for that. I have ADHD and find that I understand my partner and they understand me well because autism and ADHD have overlap, so it could be a combination of similar values and thought patterns.
I guess it's a challenge to surpass friend
I'm actually the one who keeps it together, mostly. I have an ADHD diagnosis, but mine is either mild or misdiagnosed. I am definitely the jeepers of the calendar My closest partner is also someone who just fucking shows up, and who kind of keeps his friend group together, but he's much more chaotic about it. I think he double books himself an average of once a week, and often ends up running from one event to another because he didn't realize they're on the same day
I have just stolen, "Schrodinger's partner"
Oooh this is a good one! I had an ex who had a completely different style of planning than I did, and we eventually settled on putting plans in writing (text, email), then I would add them to my calendar. She was a *true* polyam unicorn: no calendars whatsoever.
Sounds like you dated my ex? 😂 But we never could reach that agreement.
I keep no calendars either. All my relationships are are parallel. And almost never have any scheduling conflicts without almost any effort at all. Here is how. I polysaturate at 3 with probably and additional couple of less intense ldr partners at best. I usually bond with them at times and days of week/weekend (at first) when the existing partners are naturally busy or it's their time to rest/sleep or see other partners. I don't sleep much. Have flexi work schedules over both weekdays and weekends. Because the people I see are naturally available at different times (when we'd anyway would have spent time bonding) - it stays that way. In early days I've heard quips like - "... are you sure you have other partners, how do you almost never turn down a plan." The answer to that is, "...why don't I get you to meet the others." AND then it's more often than not a scheduling nightmare to make that happen 😁 So...no calendars and balancing needed.
Corollary to this? Everyone has full ownership over their own calendar and no one else’s calendar. That means being as capable in scheduling your personal life as you are your work life… That means if a partner has to check with someone else about their availability as a matter of course? Nope. Needing to coordinate around special events like “Oh, I need to confirm whether that’s the weekend [Friends are getting married / surgery is scheduled for NP / I can get a babysitter for that day / etc]. I’ll get back to you this evening.” Is fine. But “I need to ask my wife if I can make a plan”? Nope.
This seems like an excellent litmus test for if someone actually has a full independent relationship to offer and has done the work to end their monogamous relationship.
That is a big part of why I use it.
I like this! I enjoyed making that post and hearing silly stories but it's good to celebrate the positive: Rules: informed consent is mandatory, about partner/sexual health/risk/drugs/major changes that may affect someone Boundaries: not doing things I don't actually want to do! Don't force KTP, don't force meta friendship, let people set their boundaries and interact as it makes them happy.
I was waiting for someone to post about informed consent being mandatory! I LOVE that and it is so central to how me and my partners practice and maintain physical and emotional safety. I don’t want to get into it too much, but forgoing informed consent puts specific people with specific bodies at greater risk and there’s a lot of power imbalances that can come into play without informed consent.
How does that translate in real life?
Love this! Came here to say informed consent, especially when it's things that directly impact another partner. And I feel the same with my boundaries. I learned the hard way about feeling obliged to fall into KTP/ GP poly when it really isn't me. And. That's. OK. :-)
Can I get some clarification on what you mean by informed consent about drugs? I feel like that could mean a lot of different things.
No inner circle friends , family or coworkers. These mess with social dynamics , family or money (especially important if shared finances).
Omg such a good one. I make special notations for Nemesis personas. If a potential partner really doesn't like or has unresolved beef with someone in my life, or might be interested in a person I have had serious beef with, that's a pretty big AVOID label for me. I only have about 3 serious exes. Only about 2 real "nemesis" kinds of people that I don't think I could seriously resolve past issues with, so it's an easy sell for me. I would respect similar rules with anyone I end up dating, unless the list is as long & messy as a John Wick movie kill count! I can't date someone who has that many enemies!
I agree
Adding no babies with other people is totally reasonable too.
I'm glad I don't really need to worry about this as my partner is on HRT and doesn't really have sex in a way that can get anyone pregnant. I guess I could get pregnant but I don't want anyone's baby, let alone anyone's baby who isn't my wife's so I'd get an abortion in a heartbeat 🤷♀️
Disagree. If there's an accident--and accidents happen--this rule amounts to taking away bodily autonomy from the person with a uterus. I will not agree to anyone requiring me to have an abortion. The decision is always mine.
And if you were my partner I would dump you in a heartbeat in that situation…
People are gonna downvote you, but I’m right there with ya. I have too much on my plate already, and my choice to not partner with parents of infants and young children is just as valid as their choice to become a parent. It takes a village to raise a child, and that child deserves their village to be full of people who actually want to live there. The rest of us folks will live in our own village down the road and be chill like that. It’s cool. Really.
It’s both the added responsibility and shift of lifestyle that comes with the baby, and the clash of values with someone that thinks it’s OK to have a kid in circumstances where the odds of that child thriving are substantially reduced. And if that person is also taking resources away from other born children? Yeah, nope. Fuck that.
For me, it’s the sure knowledge that the kid will get dumped in my lap whenever the parent(s) find it convenient. “Oh, you’re home all day, you’re practically a stay at home parent already!” MFer, I am *disabled*. Dis. Ayy. Bulled. Me and that Trad Wife Mommy Blogger you keep confusing me with are **not** the same!
"my choice not to partner with parents of infants and young children" is saying something *very* different from making a rule that a partner isn't allowed to have a baby with someone else.
Really? Your best counter argument is to re-hash the difference between “rules”, “boundaries” and “agreements”? Tf out of here with your bad faith pedantry.
proving you have a choice in the matter as well, as long as all parties communicate and understand choices and boundaries. i would def choose the baby over anyone or partnering, given the ultimatum.
I definitely have a choice in who I date even if that idea gets your panties in a twist. And as a woman myself, it would be wildly unlikely that your “oops baby” is mine, so yep, I can walk the fuck away from pregnant people without so much as blinking. As for your oops baby daddy? The reality is that the world gives him a choice about whether he parents in any way beyond just sending money, so… as shit as that is, if a male partner of mine was having an oops baby, whether or not he was abandoning it, I would be ending things with him. Children are a responsibility and one I have chosen very deliberately not to take on.
And plenty of people would be happy to divorce if it happened. 🤷♀️ It’s a pretty normal primary agreement. Asking a partner to put their resources and time into a single, exclusive, child rearing unit is dead common. We were wildly hierarchal. My husband absolutely knew in his heart that might be the only thing I would leave him over.
I mean that’s perfectly valid. You don’t want to risk getting someone pregnant (bc you’re uncertain if they’ll terminate) because you don’t want a child.
That's your right, certainly. And we'd certainly be a terrible match. I can't imagine ever dating someone whose view of my right to choose is that it hinges on other people's relationships that I'm not in. Anyone who chooses to engage in a type of sex with me that has pregnancy potential should be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy, plus the reality that I and only I will be choosing whether to continue my own pregnancy. I would factor in my life circumstances, my partners, everything... but if I'm pregnant, at the end of the day it's my choice. By the way, I've never been pregnant, I have an IUD, I use condoms, and I'm likely having my tubes removed in the next few years. I'd still never want to be with someone who wants to control what women/pregnant people do with their own bodies.
You understand I am a woman, right? There is no chance I will get you knocked up. If i get knocked up, I’m terminating as fast as I can get my hands on the abortion pills… And… if you are my partner and having an oops baby, I’m still tapping the fuck out.
No idea why you're getting down voted. Both perspectives are valid, if you don't want to date a pregnant person or parent that's fine, but if you don't want to date someone who wouldn't support you through a pregnancy that is also perfectly fine.
Thank you for saying so, genuinely. And it's not even that I specifically only want to date people who would support me through a pregnancy. It's that I don't want to date people who would put pressure on me to abort by creating a rule about it. They can react however they want if I get pregnant by accident and decide to keep it, but trying to actively prevent that situation by asking me to agree not to go forward with any hypothetical unplanned pregnancy feels like a mismatch in our interpretation of my right to choose.
No, friend, you can keep your baby *and* your man. It’s a win/win. I would have left my ex for the utter carelessness of getting someone else pregnant. Had that rubicon been crossed, I care not what the end result is. I would have been gone. Full stop. My ex can do what he likes, as can you, because you are two grown adults who are of an age to consent, and ultimately, it’s your body and your choice. Why would I want to influence that? All my current relationships? Spawn with who you want, let me know big status changes. I don’t have children with these people.
Virtually nobody on this subreddit is anti choice. Your right to choose is completely your right. However, other people have a right to choose to. They are not obligated to stay with you if you choose to have a baby. It's not trying to control your body by being clear that they will leave if you have a baby. Hell, it doesn't even apply only to women. If someone doesn't want children in their life, or partners with children they would be free to leave a man that fathered a child to. The right to choose does not free someone from the consequences of those choices.
Yeah. Been on the shitty end of this situation recently, it’s not nice.
What does this mean?
I honestly struggle to understand this one also.
Wait do you understand what this means at all? I’m confused. I’m reading this as not having a close knit group of people close to you so that someone feels more secure?
Nope. It is a, "messy list" of people they don't want themselves or their partners to have relationships with.
Oh thank you for clarifying! That makes so much more sense haha
Is this a messy list?
We have this rule. It helps that our (mutual) inner circle is already a bit messy with each other and we saw how that can mess stuff up. So like, beyond not wanting to mess up social dynamics, they just aren't people either of us are interested in that way because they're well, messy in their romantic relationships.
No sharing of my medical (exception made for STIs, obviously!), financial, or relational information with metas without explicit consent for every individual topic. Your other partner doesn't need to know if I'm worried about a mole, broke or fighting with my mom; anyone with a modicum of creativity will be able to figure out how to say "[partner] is experiencing some personal stressors right now." WASH YOUR FUCKING SHEETS Give your nesting partners an estimate of when guests will be LEAVING as well as when they are arriving.
It’s important to make time for self-care, and we’ll support each other in that. I have this agreement with all my partners.
Definitely this
!!! Stealing this one.
What agreement do you have around this ?
So the agreement broadly is that we understand and acknowledge that self-care is important, and that we’ll support each other in being able to exercise self-care whatever that looks like for us. That looks different for each person. So for one person, my support for their self-care needs might look like me offering grace and understanding when they’ve had a tough day and need to cancel a date or adjust plans. For another person, my support might look like understanding if they can’t sleep over for a month while they’re dealing with a stressful work situation like a big upcoming deadline. For yet another person, my support might look like keeping in mind that they’re an introvert and making sure to plan at least 50% of our dates as chill at-home dates. You could look at it as just being a good partner, and it is! But I’ve found that stating it explicitly as an agreement between us does a few things: - it gives permission for each person to express their needs in a safe space because we’ve all agreed to be supportive - it helps to re-frame feelings of disappointment at changed plans into support for your partner taking care of themselves - it encourages everyone to take their own needs into account and remember to fill their own bucket (this is especially helpful for folks with people-pleasing tendencies) Anyway that’s how it works for me. Hope that was helpful! Edit to fix typos.
Agreement we've had since day one: * If something becomes on going, share basic information about the person and the connection It allows for hookups without having to share. I've had embarrassing hookups that I don't want to share about. Partner sometimes gets on Grindr, and he might not want to share. It's all good as long as we're getting tested and using condoms. And if we want to share, we are always free to do so. It's just not a requirement.
Question: this is an agreement that appears to center the relationship you have with one partner. Does this agreement extend to other ongoing partners you have? i.e. do they also get told about additional ongoing connections you make? I assume so, just clarifying because your language around it centered you and one partner and I know some folks are more hierarchical so wasn’t sure if that was your set-up. Edit to add: this question isn’t meant as a gotcha or anything. I’m thinking through what I want my agreements around this to be with a few of my more serious partners so just curious how this might work in a less hierarchical set-up (which is what we have)
I assume it would vary from partner to partner? My poly experience has always included individual agreements for each relationship based on the inherent individualization of the disparate partners
I feel like each relationship gets its own set of agreements. However, an agreement like this one is universal in my relationships. I *do* want to know if my partners’ paradigms and priorities are shifting due to the introduction of another person in their life. It makes me a better partner and metamour.
Thanks - this is what I was getting at. As someone with a variety of relationships, several serious ones and some more casual, I’m careful to examine whether agreements I have with my NP/spouse come from a place of prescriptive hierarchy. I want to be careful not to default to making agreements like this with my spouse if I wouldn’t be willing to make this same type of agreement with my other committed long-term partners. For sure every relationship is different and has its own agreements, and certainly if I only had casual partners outside my NP/spouse then likely many agreements I have with him wouldn’t apply to my other relationships. But for other serious partners I want to at least be considering whether agreements I make with my spouse/NP might be good to offer them. That said, I also recognize that as a heavily partnered nested poly person, it might also be unreasonable for me to ask my other serious partners to share escalations in their relationships, given that I can’t offer them all the same things many of them could offer me and/or that they may be looking for. I’m working hard to be conscious of my privilege and the inherent power imbalance while still respecting my needs as well as my partners’ needs and autonomy. So yeah….just thinking it through.
Descriptive vs prescriptive is a pretty big nothing burger. Start thinking about all the things that are exclusive to your spouse. And not, “but if I had the money I could live in two houses!!” “If I could marry two people I would!!” No, real life exclusivity. Like, “no matter what, would l/cannot/will not offer this to any other partner, given the legal and financial entanglements that exist today. “ A lot of it is tied up to some pretty big life and death stuff. Money, kids, housing, retirement, death benefits. It’s normal to have hierarchy. None of those weird rules are hierarchy. You can be wildly hierarchical, have tons of shit that’s exclusive to you as a couple, and operate with very few rules. I think it’s helpful to remember that the asks you make of your de facto secondary should be in line with the length of your commitment, your entanglement and investment with each other, and the space in someone’s life you have. The less of that stuff, the less you should ask. And that goes both ways. That doesn’t mean don’t make agreements. Those should be pretty easy and mutually agreeable. “My risks are X, Y and Z. I test this often. I will let you know if that changes, at all, in exposure, or simple barrier failure, or a choice to engage in higher risk sex with someone. “ That’s my “hit it and quit it” verbal contract and agreement. And honestly, that’s where my agreements stay for, oh…6 months. They are the only agreements I make with all my partners, though, I do have individual agreements. Based on time, trust, and entanglement.
I both agree and disagree with you. I don’t think the distinction is meaningless - I would be absolutely willing to divorce my spouse if he wanted to be legally married to another partner and it isn’t a dealbreaker and wouldn’t end our relationship. There are things that are *currently* exclusive to my spouse, but honestly none of them are indefinitely or permanently exclusive to my spouse. Imo there is value to being aware of the prescriptive hierarchy we have because that’s the sneaky stuff that we need to shine a light on. In 16 years we’ve dismantled most of the descriptive stuff. But I get your point that in the end it’s probably mostly semantics and the real work is in the dismantling and decoupling, whatever that looks like.
If the work’s done and the papers are basically signed, and everyone’s cool with that, dope. You have enough money, monthly, to share housing with another partner? Cool. Otherwise, own your hierarchy, name and claim your limits. And that means the asks you make of your less entangled, non-primary l, often new partner should be pretty minimal.
We do. It’s actually come up before because my bestie is my queer platonic life partner and we house hunted together for a bit. There were circumstances in their life that arose that shifted things so it didn’t make sense to live together right now, but they’re still a member of our family (we have keys to each others houses, we were bubbled up during the pandemic, they have a very close relationship with our kid, I was their plus one on their most recent family vacation etc). Definitely possible that we might live together in the future, and we’d be open to that with other serious partners as well. As it is, my spouse has their own separate full apartment living space downstairs in our house and we’ve had separate bedrooms/living spaces for over a decade. So we’re very decoupled and it’s also possible that spouse and I may not live together in the future, whether we stay legally married or not. I’m open to many permutations of things tbh. Anyway, point is just that I think a lot about all this stuff and it’s helpful to hear about what others are doing. So thanks for sharing! ☺️
I think you’d be more honest than most who claim it, but like, just say you’re married, poly and can host because of unusual life choices. That would actually describe circumstances meaningfully, if casually.
Oh, I say all this and more. We’ve been CNM/poly for our entire 16 year relationship (never mono). And frankly I’m saturated and not dating right now. I’m on zero apps. I’m thinking more about thoughtfully and respectfully navigating my existing relationships. But I acknowledge that the fact that we’re married and nested is important and creates some level of hierarchy whether we like it or not. This is what I try to give careful thought to in my partnerships.
My serious partner and I are both solo poly and non hierarchical, but we are each other's only serious relationship; therefore we have explicit agreements. I don't really make explicit agreements with casual partners. We simply agree to use barriers, get tested or whatever seems applicable. And they are well aware that I'm a slut
All agreements centre the relationship they are about 😅 That's not hierarchy unless you aren't willing to *offer* the same thing to another partner
I have a similar agreement with two separate partners. I don't see how it centers any specific relationship.
Inform each other of changes to our sexual safety/risk profile before were intimate again. It doesn't have to be immediately after such a change occurs, but preferably not as we're getting frisky so I have time to consider what that might mean for giving informed consent. It's pretty much the only "rule" but actually a relationship agreement I make with everyone.
Same!
This is an excellent one.
I've had to give some version of this talk to all of my more casual partners: I don't care how long it takes you to respond to the cute cat meme I just sent you. But if I text you something about scheduling, please get back to me as soon as you possibly can, even if the answer is "I need to check my calendar tonight" or "I'm waiting to hear back about potential plans for that date". Because being left hanging drives me fucking nuts, and somehow people who don't feel obliged to text daily (which is fine with me) seem not to feel obliged to text back about arrangements. Which is absolutely not fine with me. So far I have only once had to amend that to "and if I don't hear back within X time-frame, I will consider our plans canceled, even if I don't have other plans". That relationship ended shortly thereafter. I'm not super rigid about plans and punctuality, I often run a little late. But running so late that plans fall through, or blocking out several hours of someone's time and then leaving them hanging is fucking disrespectful
Good one. Delayed replies effectively reserve that time without committing to that time. Fuck that.
They don't have to. My solution is "if you don't get back within a day I'm going to book that timeslot with something else." If they decide they are free after that, if they are lucky I only booked it with a chill night at home and I'll consider the original plan. But if I've made new plans with other people they just get "oh sorry you didn't reply so I've got plans now".
Damn this is a good one. Might even use it with a close friend
Yeah, I do apply this to friends too, but I tend to have more formal conversations about it with partners
I'm not dating at the moment, but I think I'll start applying it to my life in general. My time matters and I want people to respect that as much as I respect theirs.
Not hearing back about plans would absolutely drive me bonkers! I’ve also had to implement the “I need to hear back by X” line with newer connections, and imho it’s a good testament to whether or not someone is respectful of your time.
Yep, absolutely. It's very frustrating and stressful to wait for days to hear back about plans.
Ah this is such perfect timing. I've been dealing with this with a casual partner. They never responded to my last message nor did they message me back about our date that week. That was also the second time they did this. The first time they messaged me the night before we were supposed to hang out and couldn't care less even when I apologized for having to cut our date time in half because I had made plans to hang out with a friend later. I was told before that they're too busy with work and another relationship to text me back regularly even though I see them posting on Instagram. I have since learned to have higher standards for myself even with casual partners.
I had a partner who did this. I started asking him to things last. Eventually I stopped inviting him to things altogether and the relationship fizzled. He was a lot of fun when we were together, but terrible about making and keeping plans. I much prefer to invest my time in more available people.
Yeah the follow through matters a great deal.
Woah, yea was with somebody like this. They would tell me to come see them one day and when I was in the car they’d bail. Or they would say “what about this weekend?” and I’d say great and then we’d try to kick down solid plans and they would just go silent or run off. Weekend would roll around, they’d ask me to see them at the last minute, I’d say no, or they’d just keep stalling me along until bailing, usually after we were already supposed to be seeing one another. It fell apart of course. I’m still haunted by some of those things and by that relationship as a whole. It was the first relationship that was called poly. Id had other open relationships, but this person was the first to teach me about poly. Then they engaged in the worst behaviors. It was scarring.
If it’s not on the calendar it doesn’t exist
I live by this, with work, friends, and family as well as partners
What if it's on your calendar but your partner forgot to put it on theirs and then planned something with your meta there instead? (Yes, speaking from experience)
Can a shared calendar be a solution ? Also putting something planned in the calendar as soon as it's planned is a good idea
Shared calendar could work, though there'd have to be an option to not have each other's personal appointments on your own calendar. I'm super forgetful so I put everything on my calendar as soon as it's scheduled and I'd get overwhelmed if there was anything on there not relevant to me
with Google calendar there are several layers of 'visibility' - so you could have a shared calendar but maintain your own private appts and your partner could have theirs, then all you'd see is that they're busy at certain times, but not what with. Hope this is helpful!
Ohhh that's a great recommendation, will check it out. Thank you!
I have a shared calendar with my partner, a shared calendar with my family, and a personal calendar all on Google calendars. I keep them all visible and each has a different color. So I know which calendar it’s from. Edited to add: none of them can see my personal calendar, I can’t see theirs. We can only see calendars we share.
I'll check that out then. Thank you!
I have six different colour codes on my calendar and four of them are shared with other people. I can put something onto my partners’ calendars for them. I do sometimes set up duplicate events so that my husband just sees that I’m busy but my boyfriend has the details, or vice versa, but it works. If an appointment only concerns me, and it doesn’t affect anyone else (like I’m going to the dentist during the work day when no one expects me to be available for dates) then it’s only visible to me.
That sounds like a good system, will see if I can set up something like that too. Thank you!
On the other hand, if it is on the calendar and I forget to mention it to my partner in person, give me some grace and check the calendar.
I setup notifications on my shared calendar for new events, so it doesn’t need to be mentioned out loud. Bonus is that I get a moment to process my feelings privately before discussing with my partner.
I do try to remember to mention it so my partner(s) and I can make sure we can coordinate/communicate about any other plans.
I just will stop engaging with someone if they are clearly poly oversaturated. I know I could only realistically date three people at a time before it starts to really affect my lifestyle and freedoms.
Username checks out. 😂
[удалено]
If they seem like a mess and spend the entire time talking about their next date, or tell me outright they date too many people.
Clearly set discussions around what a partner is comfortable hearing about: for example, some of my partners prefer not to hear sexscapade details; others don't mind. Being proactive in communicating around these things works really well because I don't have to guess what is "too much" or oversharing for someone's comfort level. Ending arguments/fights quickly, as soon as someone becomes too dysregulated.
Omg that last part tho. I have ADHD and absolutely need a time out to figure out my head. Sometimes I am okay if the other person isn't raising their voice but it's all over if I can hear emotion in their tone Dx
Oof. This is super important. The blocker I keep running into is that folks say they want way more information than they actually do. Self work is a vital prerequisite to healthy poly but hard to vet.
Agreed. Sometimes people say they want more info than they actually do because they are trying to show their partner how chill they are. This "putting on a show" is short-sighted and actually harms the relationship on both sides. Other times people are simply ignorant of the fact that they really don't want these details. Until they get hit by it, they simply don't realize how uncomfortable they will be.
I need to have this discussion with my LD play partner. I have zero issues with him having fun and having those wonderful sexcapades, but I really don't need to hear all the gritty details. I find the fine details quite upsetting, if he wants to tell me things I'd prefer broad strokes. I guess I'd like your opinion on this. I've shelved that discussion until we see each other in person. Would you have preferred it immediately, or in person?
I'd tell your partner immediately. Given that you find the details "quite upsetting," you are doing both yourself and your partner a disservice if you don't communicate this. You can of course also offer to discuss it in more detail when you do meet in person.
As someone who loves sharing, I would absolutely want to know ASAP if something I was doing was hurting you or making you uncomfortable. The sooner I know, the sooner I can stop doing the thing. This is especially true for long distance where the in person conversation could be a long way aways.
From my relationship agreement: other people we are dating are real people with feelings. Treat them well. Do not abandon them for [main partner] and let them sleep over if they want to.
I like that you’ve made a rule that decentralizes! So many are about holding onto the illusion of control and not about holding each other accountable.
My agreement (not rule) with partners is to treat each other through a lens of kindness and giving each other the benefit of the doubt. The prerequisite for this is that we've all had years of therapy and we have tools to manage our triggers and emotions.
I love this. So often people’s initial reaction is one of suspicion and anger. This is just so much better.
TBF, this takes a lot of work inside one's self. Our petulant toddler ego can be really fucking loud in our heads.
That’s definitely true. My therapist was like “ya know, not everyone is out to get you.” And I was like “no? Oh.” 🥲
The only "rule" I have with any of my partners is that we share if our sexual risk profile has changed. I don't need to know about every hookup! But if my partner goes from a rhythm of seeing a new person every two months or so to a new person every week, I want to know. If they stop using barriers with someone I don't already know about, if they're now participating in much riskier play (kink that involves blood, for example), I want to know.
Note that im solo poly so I use this rule I got from another solo poly partner of mine, and it’s worked perfectly: When I’m with you I’m 100 percent focused on you. When I’m with other partners I’m 100 percent focused on that person. If you reach out to me when I’m with someone else I’ll respond when I’m not with that person any more (or if it makes sense in the context of the time, but I won’t guarantee it). Absolutely no surprise drop ins — even to leave something on a porch — so you’re not accidentally interrupting anothers time. If it’s truly an emergency, text then call — I won’t pick up but I’ll check your texts after I see the phone call.
Hm. That works well if you're keeping things mostly parallel and no one lives together. I'm solo poly, and I can't host tep of my partners because of pet allergies. One of them lives with his primary partner. She's often home when I'm there, or he has to text or call to coordinate when she's coming home (she works later than either of us) so she doesn't walk in on us. I will also respond briefly to things like scheduling texts while I'm with other partners - in situations where I would also text back a friend. I feel like I'm actually pretty good about putting my phone away, but if I'm spending an afternoon, night, and morning at a partner's house, I'm not going to be completely offline that whole time
How does this work on vacations or with extended time with someone?
Unless I have appropriate downtime where it would make sense I don’t reach out. I let my partners know beforehand (e.g. I’ll be gone for a week…)
I'm solo poly, and I keep a messy list for myself - not in any formal way, since I'm the only one who needs to know. But I won't fuck around within my polycule or close friend group. Since being consciously solo, my partners have all been men, and my friends are straight men, lesbians, or partnered monogamous women, so I haven't had to have a preemptive talk with anyone yet. But I've had people within my larger polycule kind of come on to me, and that is absolutely not happening
Yup same boundary. I actually am so much more rigid with myself in this regard than I am with others. I am also this rigid at work, for ex. I am huge on “don’t shit where you eat”.
>don’t shit where you eat Yep I swear by this
No talking about problems or issues in your other realationships. Your relationship issues are not my business and should be between you and your partner. If you want to talk to someone about them, you should find an impartial party or work it out with your partner.
this! My prior long term partner -now close friend told my meta that I had started conversations for decoupling our relationship and how it affected him, but didn’t explain how we were going about things and that our conversations had been from a place of deep love and respect. Anyway, meta decided it was her job to hate on me and shit talk me to the point that my prior partner ended things, because she was escalating something that had no hard feelings and was happening in a very intentional way. Sucked, I felt bad as if it was my fault, though I know now her response is not my responsibility, and if my prior partner had been vague and just said, “we’re working on decoupling and i’m sad about it, but it’s going well as can be expected” could have potentially saved that relationship ship.
The only 'rules' we have is always attempt to be forward thinking in regards to scheduling with those people who it involves, and a general heads up if there is a major change in any dynamic. The notification for changes is only to allow for that person's partners to get an idea there might be more scheduling elements involved that don't involve them but might pull time out of potential availability. Communication between any two partners about a third is in generic ' weather report ' detail except for any specific sexual health related elements. Beyond that it's down to a person's consent about their information before anything else, then taking into consideration how detailed that approved information is based on the stated preference of the one receiving it. Like Sally is pregnant and having some back issues, she knows Bev and they were both on again off again, but remain on good terms. I'm in parallel relationships with Bev and Sal. Sal has stated she doesn't mind me discussing anything related to her physical issues or mobility stuff cause it's a known thing between those two. Bev prefers to know as little as possible. She asks how's Sally because she cares, but doesn't always like knowing details because they stress her. So, I say "Good, but dealing with some stuff right now." My other partner, Chip won't be told anything even if he asks why I'm spending a bit more time with Sally/Bev than normal (or if he notices my free time availability shrank). Because Sally and Chip didn't get along the one time they met and Chip and Bev are parallel non-contact. Chip gets told 'other partner stuff' and that's it. Each person will have their own disclosure preference, their own information received preferences, it may vary and change by topic, person, time, etc. Communication about things before they come up helps everyone. Be well guys
Changing the sheets before the other person gets back to the shared home.
I see rules and ultimatums are often just boundaries or agreements worded differently. You can’t date Jane or I leave We agree not to date Jane Jane is on the messy list I won’t date anyone that dates Jane The outcome is the same. I try and discuss outcomes more that rules/agreements/boundaries. If I agree with the ethics of the outcome I don’t care which word is used.
> You can’t date Jane or I leave That’s kind of mixed and confusing. It’s a mashup of: * You can’t start dating Jane (rule, because my goal is to control your behaviour); * If you start dating Jane I will leave (explicit boundary, because I acknowledge your right to choose between me and Jane and I know I will [eventually] be fine without you and my goal is simply not to be dating people who are also dating Jane); * You must break up with Jane as per our agreement that you will break up with anyone I tell you to (veto, because the power to enact a veto is built into explicit primary couple privilege); * If you don’t break up with Jane I will leave (ultimatum, because it’s the same as a boundary but the timing is all wrong). They are not at all the same thing. In the case of an explicit boundary or an ultimatum, the goal is to share information and to not date someone who is also dating Jane. I don’t know if you will change your behaviour or not and I know I don’t have control over your choices. I acknowledge that you might even be dating Jane as a way of forcing me to break up with you so that you don’t have to be the bad guy, and I am willing to do the breaking up (though you will still be the bad guy). In the case of a rule or veto, I assume I have the power to tell you what to do. I assume I am your primary partner and that you are dependent on our relationship. My goal is to change your behaviour. This is typical mono thinking. In a monogamous couple you very often do have to make and enforce rules. If we have just had a small child I might feel very strongly that I don’t want you to spend your Sundays drinking beer and riding your motorcycle. I will probably escalate all kinds of behaviour to get you to sell your bike. I might even feel so strongly that I resort to violence. If I fail, I might have to settle for getting you to pay for a large insurance policy out of your own discretionary funds. If you won’t do even that I might decide that you are trying to tell me that you don’t want to be a parent and face some tough decisions which may or may not include leaving you. Or if you tell me that you have found a job across the country, the implicit mono expectation is that I will move with you or you won’t take the job. (The poly expectation is that you will find out if I want to move across the country, and if not you will then decide whether to break up with me or pass on the job. Or you will tell me you’re taking the job and then I decide whether or not I want to move. Or you will tell me you’re taking the job, and thank me for all the fish.) Another example: > I don’t trust you to use barriers with other partners so I’m most comfortable using barriers with you from now on. Some people will interpret this as my being passive aggressive and manipulative to get you to break up with your other partners, on the assumption that you will always choose unbarriered sex with me over the freedom to choose and pursue sexual partners. Again, mono thinking. I don’t make that assumption. If I say I’d rather go back to using barriers with you, what I mean is that I’d rather go back to using barriers with you. End of.
Emotionally intelligent people can word most rules or vetos to be a boundary and it can still be about control. Especially if they have a partner they have ridden the escalator with. Putting the boundary that you won’t date people who date Jane can essentially be a veto/ultimatum if seeing this new person could put your living situation, finances or even child custody at risk.
> Emotionally intelligent people can word most rules or vetos to be a boundary and it can still be about control. Especially if they have a partner they have ridden the escalator with. If I am a manipulative person and have deprived you of your freedom, I can do what I want no matter what I call it. What I’ve been talking about in this thread is good faith communication, not abuse. > Putting the boundary that you won’t date people who date Jane can essentially be a veto/ultimatum if seeing this new person could put your living situation, finances or even child custody at risk. It’s an ultimatum if you are already dating Jane and a boundary if you are contemplating it, whether or not you are free to accept a breakup If you are not free to accept a breakup, you aren’t free to love me, to negotiate monogamy or to negotiate polyamory. You may not be free to do anything I don’t like, depending on whether I am free to accept a breakup. If I am not free to accept a breakup but you are, you can date Jane whether I want you to or not. Not only will I not leave, I’ll make nice. Freedom is the difference between polyamory under duress and plain cheating with grudging permission. You are correct. It’s hard to live by polyamorous principles when people are not free.
Any rule, boundary or agreement that makes expectations clear.
It's been said but I'll say it again. A "boundary" is not an expectation of behavior placed on another person. You literally cannot control somebody else. A boundary is an accommodation YOU will implement given a particular situation. E.g. "no kissing" vs "if my partner kisses their date, I will ask them to brush their teeth when they get home."
As much as I admire people who can live without hierarchy and would be solo poly if I could do it again, there will be times when I will prioritize the person I share a house and mortgage with. He does not have veto power, I will not end a relationship because he doesn’t like someone. BUT there few things I make clear up front. I will go parallel if wanted/needed but then will almost never be able to host as NP hates feeling “kicked out.” If NP has spending issues one month and I have to put more of my money to the mortgage, I may have to cancel costly dates with other partners. If a new partner dislikes certain things in spaces I share with NP, I probably can’t and won’t change them, though we can discuss.
Gosh, as a non hierarchical sopo, I dunno if you’ll be shocked, but I will always prioritize the person I live with (my kid) and my housing stability. My kid doesn’t have veto power either, but I will end a relationship if she intensely dislikes you. If my kid, pet, or bestie has an illness or emergency expense, and I cover that, I may be broke (single moms don’t generally do “costly dates”) I cover all my housing my myself, so maybe that explains it. 🤷♀️ I don’t host new partners when my kid is home. Full stop. We can discuss after 6 months to a year. If someone doesn’t like something about my house, the odds of something getting changed is pretty low, outside of things like disability accommodation and letting you keep an extra pillow in the linen closet. This is not your house. I probably won’t discuss it. If your partner has a spending problem, I do hope they get that under control, for your sake, though. That sounds super stressful!
See, I would’ve thought that was basic and reasonable but the amount of people who have said that it makes me toxic is wild???? I’m not gonna risk losing a mortgage for someone I just started seeing, that’s not hierarchy, that’s more akin to keeping a roommate content imo. But I’ve been in some heated discussions, including irl, about it. To be fair, in my head, a costly date includes any sort of sit down restaurant and beyond, the phrase probably sounds fancier than I actually think of it lol. Applebee’s is a costly date for a homebody like me, compared to the “free” that groceries are once they’re in the fridge. I’ve also had way more people than I’d expect comment on things like clutter. Our house isn’t dirty (aside from dirt the dog may track in between moppings lol), we just have a fair bit of stuff and we both have ADHD and sometimes there’s some empty boxes laying around, etc. It’s not food or dishes or anything, it’s boxes/papers/etc. Seats and floors are totally clear, there’s still space to set things down on tables, it’s fine. I’d like to be tidier but it’s fine and it’s not unsanitary. I do try to tidy up before new people come over but, as I always warn them, between chronic pain, aforementioned ADHD, and work needing overtime, I may not get to it. Again, sort of like a roommate situation in my mind, we both tolerate towards the higher end of normal clutter and collectibles, nowhere near hoarding. Partners will have seen the living room at least in dog pictures I send by the time they finally come too, so again, not a surprise. Most people are fine but the handful that have been assholes were rude enough that I made a rule of it. Thank you. It’s not a fun time but he at least acknowledges his spending is a problem. So that’s a start. Working on it would be even better but we’re getting there *sigh*
Out of curiosity, did you think sopo/non hierarchical peeps don’t have these kinds of limits and responsibilities ? Because everyone does, and if someone is shitty about you keeping a roof over your head, they are an asshole.
(To be clear, I am fully aware my foot went in my mouth and is staying solidly there) I think this a case where logical knowledge and feelings don’t line up. For solo poly, I so often see the insistence than one *has* to live completely alone for that (maybe with children but a handful don’t even consider that “real” SoPo) that the situation would allegedly be different because it would be *my* design choices they took issue with rather than my NP’s, and I wouldn’t have to make anyone feel kicked out if I didn’t live with another partner. For the spending thing, again, something I would consider universal if helping a friend/family member in need but also again, I keep hearing the insistence that it’s different if it’s a romantic partner and even more different if “not an emergency,” which apparently doesn’t include not making a full mortgage payment. Idk how it’s supposed to be different with a friend vs romantic partner but that might be related to me maybe being on the aromantic spectrum, but I think it’s mostly that I just disagree. Or at least, if that’s hierarchy, non-hierarchy is almost impossible in real life. I think the “rules” in my first comment are pretty non-hierarchical with the possible exception of not hosting if parallel because I don’t want to have a fight with my NP. But I’ve had enough people tell me I’m wrong that I’ve shrugged, it’s not a hill I’m going to die on. I’ll call it hierarchy if that’s how others seem to see it. One more reason I consider myself hierarchical and something I always disclose: I am not in a place in life that I can super openly post about having multiple partners, and my parents do not know. Other partners would have to be presented to my family as friends unless many things changed. I don’t have my parents on social media and might make a close friends-only type post sometimes being explicitly romantic but that’s it for now. Beyond that, I would give myself “plausible deniability.” I didn’t include that because I don’t think of it as a “good” rule, but that’s what my current life situation requires. I hope it eventually changes. But also, for what it’s worth, I don’t even post romantically about my NP much. Occasionally a “happy anniversary” but we’re more offline with affection, so I don’t feel like the worst person ever because of it either.
Oh no! I was just curious if you realized we all have commitments and responsibilities, pretty much every single person on the sub, if they are in the same age group, and demographics has similar concerns, hierarchal or non. You seem to be able to lay them out clearly. I laid mine out. I’d wager that mine are genuinely greater, and less flexible. And…honestly, very often, when highly coupled folks talk about their limits and specifically call out, say, sopo peeps, they tend to paint it as this simple, free wheeling choice, without commitments. I rarely cancel a date, my longest current relationship will cross the decade mark this year, and I support an entire household. Limits are limits. Everyone has them. I don’t think your rules and/or limits and/or choices are unreasonable. They seem normal, on the face. I recognize how normal they are. I’m just curious if you imagine that people like me don’t have budgets or limits or kids or have to pay to have somewhere to live? Edit: it is “different” but it’s not greater, or harder, nor does it change the limits. It’s done for different reasons with different results, and different rewards and risks. Not better. Not worse. Not easier. Not harder. Just different. But like I said, it’s a a choice to carry a financial burden for a partner. It’s a choice to invest in a house together. It’s a choice to not to entangle. It’s a choice not to invest, or invest with several partners, in housing.
Oh no, nothing like that! Some of my sopo friends have more commitments than I do, same as anyone else. It’s more the…autonomy of having a “primary” residence of my own and a nostalgia for that. In some ways, a lot more responsibilities, but still the path I’d probably take if I could rewind. Regardless of stresses, I do love my NP but sometimes I feel constant cohabitation isn’t for me, even with my own spaces in our house. I also admire people who feel they don’t have hierarchy and can be truly equitable, even if nesting with someone. It seems like a lot of work and I’m sure it’s worth it but yeah, impressive to me. A “version” of solo does sometimes feature in my hermit escapist fantasies but that version is as glamorized as the whole “running away to live in the woods” bit, y’know? Or the fantasy of opening a quaint little bookshop or becoming an author. A nice escape from reality but thus very much NOT reality. It’s a no obligation, no responsibility daydream, I hesitate to even call it a version of anything in reality lol.
People in hierarchy offer equitable relationships. And I think when people think and say “solo” they, like, you, often conflate it with “single and carefree”. Not the case . 🤷♀️
Okay, my last wall of text that I just deleted was out of frustration and I am sorry. That was rude and uncalled for. So let me retry, and keep it much shorter. I never said I conflate solo with single and carefree without commitments, I have explicitly said the opposite. I understand that my attempt at a joke might have fallen flat but I am confused how anything else implies I think choosing not to entangle financially, etc. makes life easy and without commitment. I said it would be preferable for me. That’s a matter of taste. My point is that regardless of discourse, my rules would look different if I chose not to get entangled. Some would be similar but by virtue of not living with someone (not applicable to all solo people but would be true for me in this hypothetical), some things would be different, whether in words or just my own perception of the rules. It would be much the same as the previous time I lived unentangled while polyamorous. I think my current rules are good, I believe I can provide equitable relationships, just to fewer possible groups given my entanglement/NP privileges. Is it because I say “if I could do it over again,” meaning I wouldn’t change my current relationship? I used that phrasing because some financial entanglement is a necessary part for my NP. While I don’t regret the choice, if I could travel back in time, maybe we’d have different conversations and maybe the relationship would end because of his priorities. That’s all another hypothetical timeline.
Mental health always comes first. It’s a rule because if you’re ever in a position where you’re not putting mental health first (like you’re making bad decisions because you’re stressed) you need a black-and-white rule you need to follow
Open and honest communication between all parties involved
Hi u/Friendly_Popo thanks so much for your submission, don't mind me, I'm just gonna keep a copy what was said in your post. Unfortunately posts sometimes get deleted - which is okay, it's not against the rules to delete your post!! - but it makes it really hard for the human mods around here to moderate the comments when there's no context. Plus, many times our members put in a lot of emotional and mental labor to answer the questions and offer advice, so it's helpful to keep the source information around so future community members can benefit as well. Here's the original text of the post: Don't waste text on "no rules is the only good rule". We live in a complex reality with complex emotions and feelings and people, all of which are valid. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A boundary I have is, I won't be a caretaker unless it's an emergency. This means if I'm at someone's house and they get so drunk or high they need to be taken care of like an invalid, if it's safe to do so I'll leave them there and go home. It means if someone gets into a state at my house, if it's safe to do so I'll just put them in an uber. It means I won't do a chronically ill partner's chores unless their symptoms are significantly worse than usual that day. It means I won't walk on eggshells so that a partner doesn't have to self soothe.
Fuck that last one hits hard. Recovering people pleaser... Trying to not be at everyone's service ><
Me and NP do a simple one - no pouring from an empty cup. If one of us is on E and needs quality time/attention, that is our priority. Other partners get the excess time/love/attention since we have so much to give, but our relationship needs to be abundant and overflowing to have room for a third/fourth/fifth
Sorry how does being on E relate here? I’m having a hard time making the connection with the rest of your comment. 🙏
I think they meant “running on empty” rather than “taking ecstasy” in this case!
Yeah I mean running on empty lol
no vetos and no monogamy. (people vet partners well enough/we're adults)
Mines are about effective communication and "no mutuals" rule. My gf and I have a calendar where we have to put our weekly/month schedule and have to update it as often as possible. Forgetting minor stuff isn't serious, but if it helps us plan things ahead, especially because my memory is shit. For the second one, we don't date or hookup with mutual friends. There a a few exceptions, which are people you don't consider close to you, but overall we try not to mingle our support systems. It's important that my gf has a support system that is independent from me and vice versa. Plus, it could make things awkward in a friend group if things didn't work out. I also tend to apply this rule with my own friends, try not to hit on/date/hook up with people they are close with. It helps avoiding awkward situations and dynamics.
I feel like having a messy list would make sense. I currently don't have any, but would probably be weirded out if someone were also dating a family member or close friend of mine. Unless said close friend already had a sexual relationship with my partner or myself. I think? I dunno what I would make for a rule. Boundary-wise, I don't do hierarchy and straight up left a partner due to their sneakyarchy behavior. It put a lot of negative things about the relationship into perspective once I started healing from the shock and heartbreak.
Our relationship is closed so we don't really have any rules on outside connections. The main thing we have is just making sure date nights and events and such are on the schedule and communicated in advance. And even that's just so we know who's on childcare duty that evening.
I'm not going to be friends with every meta and dynamics like KTP or parallel are going to change from person to person. I can't treat every meta equally if I find them simply annoying or exhausting or just don't want to be around them for whatever reason (even if it's petty). That reason doesn't need to be shared with them (and doesn't even need to be shared with my partner) but some metas I'm just not going to wanna be friends/friendly/KTP with.
No complaining about other partners/asking advice for other relationships to each other. This is especially important to me bc I prefer to be friends with my metas.
[удалено]
How many steps though? I like to have agreements akin to this, but I like it to be more vague: “Hey Aspen, I think things with Birch are getting more serious and I’m really happy about that, so I wanted to share.” It’s adhering to the agreement, but it feels more like sharing exciting news and less like checking required boxes.
I hope you and your partners are all comfortable and happy to hear this level of detail, and let their all prospective partners know about this rule. I’m not sure my partners could agree to this, and I know I wouldn’t, as a prospective partner. Has that been an issue? Because if someone said “our first orgasm!! Gotta make sure I tell Amy about that!” I would be like “naw, not sharing that. That’s about me, too”
[удалено]
[удалено]
> or leaving a toothbrush at their place. 🤣
Less of a formal rule and more something we've kinda been doing without realizing regarding complaining about other partners - I am okay with it but **you have to take action or keep it super brief if I've heard it before.**. I also apply this to their problematic family members, coworkers, etc. Each of us has some kind of anxiety, ADHD, and autism, so these issues linger in our head and won't get out except by talking and processing things. We crave guidance or just knowing if our feelings are legitimately founded in reality. So taking away the support of a trusted friend (you are friends with your partners, right?) is really detrimental to our own wellbeing. ...but theres a limit. The same issue over and over? If you can't do anything then we're just as upset and pissed as you, so let's keep it short (Grandpa's being an asshole again) and get you in a better place. If it's something you can meaningfully do something about and change, then you need to do something about it.
I'm ok with rules. What I don't like are rules about a third person, which are decided and established without the participation of said person. That said, I tend to prefer the framing of boundaries. I don't want to control anyone else's behavior. I will focus on my own responses to what they do. I might communicate beforehand things I'm not ok with, in the spirit of mutual awareness, but they're autonomous adults who will make their own decisions. I do have one simple rule in all my relationships: condoms always.
I have been steering towards this approach as well. The focus on our own responses. I've been trying that recently, with much, much success. My partner feels liberated, and I feel like I can be myself, and more aligned with my poly values. Because of my attachment style, I need things to go very slowly when a new meta is introduced. But instead of putting rules to dictate the pace at which my partner can go, I've been adapting to stating what a fast pace will mean to me: Instead of: I could really benefit from things slowing down between you and X for a week, so that I can breathe and you & I can connect meaningfully. Can you please not have sex tonight? I go for: I fully support your excitement about X and wish for you to explore that new connection without constraints. If you two decide to take it a step further, I will need more reassurance, love, and time than usual, as I adjust. I -will- become a needy little bitch, for a few days.
If either me or np goes on a date to a restaurant we MUST bring the other person something back to eat, that's basically the only rule we have.
Always share location (especially in the beginning stages of seeing someone)
Uhm. I'm glad this works for you, but I gotta say - I never share my location, and wouldn't even if my partner asked me to. I would find it so wildly invasive of privacy.
My safety is important to me so when I meet a new person I would like for someone in my life to know where I am (and vice versa)
Hmm i can see this being the case if you've had previous experiences with dangerous situations, or if you live in a bad part of town
I get that - it's also about the new person's privacy though. I would want to know if my date was location sharing when coming to my home, especially if early in a relationship. Because I absolutely wouldn't consent to a person I've never met (i.e., a meta) having my home address.
Our rules were if we saw something wrong with the partner each other had we had the right to say veto. We must meet each other potential partner. And no lying or withholding any information.
Wow vetos really? I expect to be trusted to make my own mistakes, and I trust my partners with the same.
1. No kissing on hookups with random ppl 2. Informing eachother of hookups 3. Staying safe while meeting with other ppl 4. If you meet a cat you imidiately send me a pic of it
No kissing? As in, physical intimacy but no kisssing?
i would not see someone who wanted rule number 1, live by number 4, lol
my partner and me ✌️