Would one's need for more emotional intimacy than their partner can give lead to poly?

[sunbuckus 3,567]

We've heard of relationships where one partner has a higher sex drive than the other and sometimes this leads them to trying out swinging. Keeping this in mind, I was wondering recently if couples where one has a higher need for emotional intimacy than the other sometimes creates a curiosity in polyamory. So, just as swinging can possibly solve the issue of one partner having a much higher sex drive, could polyamory possibly solve the issue where one partner requires more emotional intimacy than then their primary partner can give?

[Lionheart72 2,190]

My gut reaction is that just as swinging is not a solution to problems in a relationship, likewise poly is not a solution. Personally, if a relationship lacks emotional intimacy, than I would wonder if it was really a loving relationship at all.

[sunbuckus 3,567]

It's not that there's not emotional intimacy but that one partner requires more of it than the other is able to provide. Some people, for lack of a better word, aren't as emotionally "needy".

[asncpl 729]

Emotion is a tricky thing. Sure, polyamory may fill the emotional void, but it may create additional emotional issues. People are more vulnerable when they are emotionally needy. What if the new poly partner has emotional intimacy to spare and can fulfill all the emotional needs. Will he overtake the primary partner? Will you grow apart from the primary partner because you no longer need that emotional connection?

 

I certainly get that one partner is more emotionally needy, but I am just not sure polyamory is a fix for it, at least not without unintended consequences.

[a_d_xxx 663]

I don't think that swinger or poly are 'solutions' to anything. I view them as callings.

 

I'm going to make a horrible analogy here, but I view the difference in effort between monogamy and poly as akin to the difference between jamming in your garage with friends on occasion and being in a touring band.

 

Not in the enjoyment and fulfilment you gain from it, but in the amount of effort and commitment required. To be successful at poly (just like being successful at being in a band) it needs to be calling, it needs to be something you couldn't see yourself NOT doing. The effort required, the levels of communication, in scheduling, in focused empathy, and potential emotional uncertainty and drama, goes unnoticed because living any other way would be unbearable.

 

D

[sunbuckus 3,567]

I agree with you guys, using swinging or polyamory as a solution isn't a good idea. I'm now wishing I had taken more time to adequately write out this hypothesis more though because I did a piss poor job of it in my rush yesterday! For example, in swinging, I know that a lot of the allure is to have variety. Variety in different people, different styles in having sex (rough, slow, BDSM, kink, whatever)...well, let's take the five love languages (words of affirmation, acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time, physical touch). We each have our own strengths and weaknesses. We all have our preferences/leans toward what we like in terms of these love languages. I think we all enjoy all of them but some of them more than others. So, taking swinging sex as an analogy: some people prefer to have sex that leans toward BDSM however their partner isn't really into it and will engage in it once in a blue moon. However, in swinging, the partner that enjoys it much more can seek it out with others on a more regular basis. So, they have their BDSM "bar" filled in that manner. So, assuming that the person has that "calling" or a general interest in poly, the partner finds that they can find others who engage in their preferred love language (like say physical touch) more than their primary...is that really more of a "solution" or seeking out the variety within love?

[Lionheart72 2,190]

So, assuming that the person has that "calling" or a general interest in poly, the partner finds that they can find others who engage in their preferred love language (like say physical touch) more than their primary...is that really more of a "solution" or seeking out the variety within love?

 

See, I'm still seeing a lack of sufficient emotional intimacy as a problem in a relationship rather than a difference in style. For a successful poly relationship, all the various relationships within it must be strong or at least stable. I simply cannot envision a relationship lacking in a common "love language" as being strong or stable enough to successfully add the complexities of poly.

[asncpl 729]

The way I see the analogy is that different forms of sex are interests and fun activities. I may like a threesome and have a BDSM streak, but that doesn't mean sex with Mr. A is not good. Swinging, while fun, is not essential to my marriage. Emotional intimacy, at least for me, is a need, not an interest. I need physical affection. With the unpredictability of emotions, I just am not sure if my primary relationship will suffer if I am not getting enough of it and instead find its fulfillment elsewhere.

[Glida 250]

Sunbuckus I hear you. I crave emotional intimacy... I am usually the needy one in our marriage and it's so easy to think sometimes that that void can be filled outside of the primary relationship. These are times when you'll find our profiles closed and we go underground. Have you thought about roll play? Mr G has 3 or 4 different personas where he's the stranger, the dominant, the client or the masseur...ask Mr Sun for what you want and then teach him how to give it to you. Men like directions I have found. xx

[M1F2KTJ 473]

Yes