Question about definition of polyamory

[Fla-swing99 136]

This is the wife half asking this question. Am I correct in the definition of a poly in the fact that it means you believe you can love more than one person at the same time?

 

If so, I am a little confused on how that can be. I guess I always felt that if you are truly in love your heart and soul is to that one person. How can you love more than one person at once and still feel that it is really love to both or either person?

 

Please don’t take my question as a negative one, I am just very curious and would love to learn about how it works. I have only recently learned or heard about the lifestyle of polyamores, so I am intrigued and curious to learn a bit more on it. Also how then do you feel that you have met your soulmate, or do you believe there is no such thing or even possibly more than one soulmate for you?

 

Thank you for any replies that may help me to understand this better.

[Lionheart72 2,190]

This is the wife half asking this question. Am I correct in the definition of a poly in the fact that it means you believe you can love more than one person at the same time?

 

If so, I am a little confused on how that can be. I guess I always felt that if you are truly in love your heart and soul is to that one person. How can you love more than one person at once and still feel that it is really love to both or either person?

 

I would say it's a question of seeing love not as a single token that may only be given to one person, but as a limitless well... you can't run out of love, because the more you love, the more love you have.

 

We've been socialized to see romantic love as an absolute and limited thing. That, as you say, you can only love one person with all your heart and soul. That there is only one True Love somewhere out there for you... a soulmate. For some people, perhaps that is true and is what they need. In general, however, humans are capable of loving more than one romantic partner throughout their lifetimes. A romantic relationship ends with one partner, you eventually find love with another. Having loved before doesn't diminish your ability to love your new partner. In fact, it may enhance it because, having loved, you understand love better.

 

Polyamory embraces the idea that, for some, you don't have to lose the first partner to find love with another. Likewise, loving one does not diminish your ability to love others. The more you love, the better you understand what it is to love, the more love you have to give. Your love, your heart, your soul, grows with each love to embrace all loves.

[Napoleon 230]

I'm currently in a polyamory open relationship, I have three beautiful girlfriends.

 

I'm a retired 36 year old man, I don't want kids, I don't get romantically/sexually involved with any woman with underage children, and I will never get married. Marriage has no benefit for me. My current girlfriends are between the age of 20 and 24. They don't want kids at the moment and they don't want to get married at the moment. I made it very clear to my girlfriends on our first date that I never want kids and I never want to get married so when the time comes that they do want kids and want to get married our relationship will have to end. I also made it very clear to them on our first date that I'm not a "one woman only" type of man. Would they marry and have kids with me if I wanted to? Yes. They also don't need me financially but being at a far greater income scale than them I'm able to let them enjoy a high quality lifestyle that they couldn't afford on there on. I love and care for them. The one challenge at times is the juggling act of giving them the amount of one on one attention each of my girlfriends desire. Other than that it's everything flows smoothly. It's been great so far.

[Fla-swing99 136]

Thank you both for taking the time to explain to me your perspectives on this issue. As I said, I was not trying to be negative or disrespectful with my question, I simply wanted to hear from those that consider themselves to be polyamory why you feel the way you do in your ability to love more than one. I guess you can call it self education of things I do not understand myself but certainly do not judge others for especially ones like yourselves that have a clear definitive reason for feeling the way you fell. It was very helpful, thank you.

[M1F2KTJ 473]

My wife won't participate in forums. This is a perfect question for her to answer. Long story short. Yes. It is possible to have two soulmates. Both have that unique certain something. It's complicated.

[Fla-swing99 136]

M1F2KTJ Thank you for your input!

[Napoleon 230]

M1F2KTJ Thank you for your input!

 

Yep. ?

[Lionheart72 2,190]

Thank you both for taking the time to explain to me your perspectives on this issue. As I said, I was not trying to be negative or disrespectful with my question, I simply wanted to hear from those that consider themselves to be polyamory why you feel the way you do in your ability to love more than one. I guess you can call it self education of things I do not understand myself but certainly do not judge others for especially ones like yourselves that have a clear definitive reason for feeling the way you fell. It was very helpful, thank you.

 

Thank you for asking. It's a very fair question.

[kittyswinger 260]

If so, I am a little confused on how that can be. I guess I always felt that if you are truly in love your heart and soul is to that one person. How can you love more than one person at once and still feel that it is really love to both or either person?

It is difficult to explain so I feel polyamory is not for everybody. There are people who are naturally wired for it. In my experience, it just happens and you will know it. Just like any mono relationship, it can either be "love at first sight" or one that gradually unfolds beginning from friendship, or if you started as swing playmates starting from your first plays and you will gradually feel the connection going beyond sex. The important thing is if stands the test of time. After the NRE (new relationship energy)or the initial sexual intensity has waned, do you still long for each other's company?

 

I'm in a V poly relationship with 2 guys. The first one is my SO, and the second one which I also now consider my SO but will refer to him as my BF just to distinguish the 2 when writing. Before he became my bf, his brother was our regular swing playmate but when I met my bf in the same context, I felt more connected to him and quickly developed into a relationship (5th year now). We had chemistry that I never experienced with his brother. In short, the dynamics is no different from a mono relationship; love comes unexpectedly and magically. You will feel and know it. Only difference is one can fall in love more than once. And there is no desire to leave the first one because the connection is still deep. Maybe it's not for everybody.

[padoc 1,703]

Im not even sure that "soulmate" is an actual thing, particularly when its being discussed in a romantic light. I think humans are capable of having deep and abiding love for more than one person and for more than one person at a time. We loved our parents, we love our children, we love most of our siblings. Most of us have had more than one sexual love in our lives. Who says we can't have more than one at a time. If we're able to love more than one parent or one child concurrently, why shouldn't we be able to love more than one sexual partner at a time. Couplers posts on here a lot. While her poly family must be a bit confusing at times, what she describes sounds like a loving and satisfying arrangement for the partners. Its probably a lot of work, but she might be on to something.

[Brimba 30]

This is the wife half asking this question. Am I correct in the definition of a poly in the fact that it means you believe you can love more than one person at the same time?

 

If so, I am a little confused on how that can be. I guess I always felt that if you are truly in love your heart and soul is to that one person. How can you love more than one person at once and still feel that it is really love to both or either person?

 

Please don’t take my question as a negative one, I am just very curious and would love to learn about how it works. I have only recently learned or heard about the lifestyle of polyamores, so I am intrigued and curious to learn a bit more on it. Also how then do you feel that you have met your soulmate, or do you believe there is no such thing or even possibly more than one soulmate for you?

 

Thank you for any replies that may help me to understand this better.

 

Yes, you are correct in what you think what polyamory is all about. It is indeed difficult for someone like you who is raised as a monogamous individual. One can easily love multiple people as much as one can love just the one. Although both my wife and I are now leading a monogamous life we still speak in poylamorous terms. There was a time when I myself had three lovers at once. It was fun. And yes, neither was I jealous because my wife and my other lovers had other lovers as well. As a matter of fact we used to get together for some unadulterated fun. This said, both my wife and I are now leading a monogamous life, however, we still are polyamorous by heart...perhaps someday, she and I may get back to it together - we miss polyamory at times. You need to get involved and enjoy its lifestyle - it is fun.

[Brimba 30]

Yes, you are correct in what you think what polyamory is all about. It is indeed difficult for someone like you who is raised as a monogamous individual. One can easily love multiple people as much as one can love just the one. Although both my wife and I are now leading a monogamous life we still speak in poylamorous terms. There was a time when I myself had three lovers at once. It was fun. And yes, neither was I jealous because my wife and my other lovers had other lovers as well. As a matter of fact we used to get together for some unadulterated fun. This said, both my wife and I are now leading a monogamous life, however, we still are polyamorous by heart...perhaps someday, she and I may get back to it together - we miss polyamory at times. You need to get involved and enjoy its lifestyle - it is fun.

[a_d_xxx 663]

If so, I am a little confused on how that can be. I guess I always felt that if you are truly in love your heart and soul is to that one person. How can you love more than one person at once and still feel that it is really love to both or either person?

 

If your definition of true love is that it must be limited to only one person, and that it (by definition) precludes feeling love for anyone else, then yes, I can see polyamory being confusing, because you've defined it out of existence.

 

However, for many of us, we've let go of that definition (or never held it to begin with), for us love is simply something we feel, and it's just an emotion (or set of emotions), not a set of limitations. With that view, polyamory becomes much easier to understand.

 

The classic saw when answering this question, is to ask: Imaging yourself as a parent, with multiple children, which is the one you love? Most parents would tell you, "That is an absurd question, I love them all." Polyamory is a lot like that.

 

D

[Fla-swing99 136]

Thank you very much all for the responses, its been very interesting to learn everyones perspective on this issue. As I said, I was simply curious about the subject but please don't misunderstand that to mean I took issue with it or judged anyone based on it. I do not believe there are any right or wrong answers when it comes to how an individual feels. Again, thanks for everyone's input.

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

Fla-swing99; the way I think of it is this; If you have one child and love that child, and you have another...are you incapable of loving that second child? Most parents feel a deep love for their children, enough that they would willingly sacrifice their lives to save them. I know that I do. I have three children. I don't love any of them more or less than the others. It might be different with each, but the strength is there with each. Our hearts and minds are able to carry such love for multiple children. Similarly, most love both of their parents. That is a different sort of love, but the love one has for both parents can be just as strong for both of them. You can continue these comparisons to extended family and friends.

 

So, if we're capable of having types of love for multiple people such as kids and parents, why would it be the case that when it comes to someone we are romantically engaged with we are incapable of romantically loving someone else with the same intensity?

[GoldCoCouple 4,065]

Not alimony, polymony

[kittyswinger 260]

If yawl end up breaking up .....does anyone get stuck paying alimony X 2 ?

Polymony? :-D Since only the spouses who are legally married will be entitled to alimony, prolly it won't be a problem to the other members of a polycule who are unmarried to anyone. As to child support in case of a breakup, I guess it depends on State laws. There are laws who only recognize the married couple as parents of children born inside of the marriage, regardless of paternity. If the unmarried female partner had a child, Im sure child support will be an issue, or if the single male partner wants to be recognized as the father of a child from a mother who is married to another, I guess support will be an issue too.

[PeterJ 940]

...Since only the spouses who are legally married will be entitled to alimony...

 

In a strictly legal sense yes "alimony" refers to post-marital financial support between formerly married people. But for decades now, since the landmark 1976 Marvin v. Marvin "palimony" case, when people cohabit for a substantial period of time, there can be legally mandated post-relationship financial support.

 

I would expect in the case of a polyamorous cohabiting family that dissolves, if one member had dedicated himself or herself to a disproportionate amount of housekeeping and/or childcare instead of working outside the home for money, they would be due at least a period of financial support from the other members of the family whose professional success was supported and enhanced by the person who had foregone outside work.

 

While I suspect that polyamorous families tend to come together organically and that roles within the family change with the passage of time, I think it would be prudent for folks who contemplate expanding a dyadic family into something larger to negotiate an agreement about how they would deal with a potential ending of the new relationship and then have a lawyer memorialize that agreement in legally sound language. And then update it periodically as circumstances change. Said the man who hasn't updated his estate plans in more than a dozen years...

[kittyswinger 260]

My question is once a family is born , I.e. Your mom and dads now , doesn't that cross over into polygamy territory ?

 

Or is that only with a mff triad dynamic and not the one you described that you are in?

 

My question isn't to be construed that polygamist can't swing or be swingers should they choose to. Swinging is open to anyone that wants to. I'm really just curious about your opioin since you are actually in a multi parter relationship.

 

An advantage of a V poly structure is that the F is the hinge between 2 M's who have no relationship to each other and are not living together. If raising children will be involved, some laws would consider them illegitimate children and not polygamy. That is if the married couple will not recognize the child as their own or fruit of their own marriage.

 

Philosophically (since Im not a lawyer), polyamory, polygamy, polygyny, or polyandry are just labels and they can mean the same thing if love is the foundation of their relationship and the parties involved are mature and responsible adults. Obviously, the difference between polyamory and the rest of them is the absence of a formal legal contract between the partners. But since in polygamy there is a legal contract, the State comes in to say No.

 

I think the spirit of the law why it prohibits polygamy and more tolerant of polyamory are (1) protection of children and the women in the relationship. Our laws are not mysogynistic and are protective of the welfare of children in case of a relationship breakdown. Both the psychological and financial impact. They want to prevent that from happening. Unlike in other cultures where polygamy originated, the majority of people in Western cultures are middle class and they can't possibly support multiple wives and children after a breakup. The state won't take the financial burden for them either.

 

(2) the legal havoc that it will bring to the state. Aside from financial burden I mentioned, imagine the lawsuits that may arise pertaining to the succession and division of properties, "polymonies", medical representatives, insurance claims, tax deductions, etc. moreso, in case of a breakup.

 

And (3) cultural context of "polygamy". The concept of polygamy started with some eastern religions with values different from western culture. Most of western laws descended from the Roman laws which are based on Christian values, like love, women as equal to men, monogamy, etc. So when polygamy is practiced where western laws or culture is at work, it may bring with it other religious-cultural constructs related to it like the the husband can choose a wife who is a minor, women sometimes can't refuse to marriage due to dowries or parents deciding for them, wives can't file a divorce, only the husbands, honor-killing, etc. which are all incompatible to Western values. The reason western laws prohibit it. Whereas modern polyamory is totally a Western mental construct which is based on ground rules & values that we all share, and therefore, the State can easily come in to police or arbitrate it in case relationships go south.

 

And yes, those who practice polyamory can still swing! But women who practice polygamy from an eastern religious context, can't! :-P

[kittyswinger 260]

In a strictly legal sense yes "alimony" refers to post-marital financial support between formerly married people. But for decades now, since the landmark 1976 Marvin v. Marvin "palimony" case, when people cohabit for a substantial period of time, there can be legally mandated post-relationship financial support.

 

I would expect in the case of a polyamorous cohabiting family that dissolves, if one member had dedicated himself or herself to a disproportionate amount of housekeeping and/or childcare instead of working outside the home for money, they would be due at least a period of financial support from the other members of the family whose professional success was supported and enhanced by the person who had foregone outside work.

 

While I suspect that polyamorous families tend to come together organically and that roles within the family change with the passage of time, I think it would be prudent for folks who contemplate expanding a dyadic family into something larger to negotiate an agreement about how they would deal with a potential ending of the new relationship and then have a lawyer memorialize that agreement in legally sound language. And then update it periodically as circumstances change. Said the man who hasn't updated his estate plans in more than a dozen years...

 

Thank you for this legal perspective. Im sure this will be helpful to everyone thinking of starting a polycule family or poly relationships in general :-)

[Lionheart72 2,190]

And (3) cultural context of "polygamy". The concept of polygamy started with some eastern religions with values different from western culture. Most of western laws descended from the Roman laws which are based on Christian values, like love, women as equal to men, monogamy, etc. So when polygamy is practiced where western laws or culture is at work, it may bring with it other religious-cultural constructs related to it like the the husband can choose a wife who is a minor, women sometimes can't refuse to marriage due to dowries or parents deciding for them, wives can't file a divorce, only the husbands, honor-killing, etc. which are all incompatible to Western values. The reason western laws prohibit it. Whereas modern polyamory is totally a Western mental construct which is based on ground rules & values that we all share, and therefore, the State can easily come in to police or arbitrate it in case relationships go south.

 

Just to nitpick a bit... Roman laws were not based on Christian values. Roman laws predated the foundation of Christianity by several hundred years. Roman laws, and the subsequent Medieval Christian European laws which followed them, considered women to be the property of their fathers until marriage and property of their husbands after marriage. Roman law, and Medieval European laws, never considered woman to be equal to men in any sense. Western culture has a long history of old men marrying underaged girls, arranged marriages and dowries. Divorce wasn't merely illegal but sinful. King Henry VIII literally founded the the Church of England because the Roman church wouldn't allow him to get a divorce. The very idea of marriage-for-love was considered by a radical and socially unacceptable concept for most of Western European history... unless you were a peasant and then nobody cared what you did as long as you paid your taxes and were born, married and buried Christian. Oh, and husbands and fathers had the right to kill their wives and daughters if they "betrayed their virtue", though lifetime imprisonment in a nunnery was the more acceptable course.

 

Also, polygamy was widely practiced by a fair number of pre-Christian western cultures, including early Judaism.

[kittyswinger 260]

Just to nitpick a bit... .

Thanks. This is a conversation so the more info the better. It adds breadth and quality to our understanding. But Im sure you are referring to organized Christian churches, and not the essence of the Christian teachings per se.

[Lionheart72 2,190]

Thanks. This is a conversation so the more info the better. It adds breadth and quality to our understanding. But Im sure you are referring to organized Christian churches, and not the essence of the Christian teachings per se.

 

I was referring to the history of Western culture, which from between the fall of the Roman Empire until at least the Enlightenment self-identified as Christendom. I intend no judgements on anyone's personal faith or religious experience.

[adamgunn 1,460]

Lionheart, just to nitpick your nitpicking. (Of course, no offense intended.)

 

Although your quick summary of 2,000 years of history is mainly correct, it leaves out much subtlety. For example, although the property laws you suggest for the Romans is true for unmarried women, once a woman was a widow she was able to marry pretty much whoever she wanted at that stage, or remain unmarried assuming she wished to and had sufficient monies; also, divorce was rather easy to come by. Both of these differ severely from Christian Europe during the middle ages. Although the 'publicized' rationale for Henry VIII's defection from Catholicism was his wish for a male child which Catherine couldn't give him, the desire for the riches of the Catholic landholdings and the paucity of his treasury may have been as much or more of the impetus.

 

History is very subtle, and should be treated very carefully.

[Lionheart72 2,190]

History is very subtle, and should be treated very carefully.

 

Agreed

[couplers 4,614]

This is the wife half asking this question. Am I correct in the definition of a poly in the fact that it means you believe you can love more than one person at the same time?

 

If so, I am a little confused on how that can be. I guess I always felt that if you are truly in love your heart and soul is to that one person. How can you love more than one person at once and still feel that it is really love to both or either person?..

For us in our poly family, it was a matter of accretion. Two men, both of whom I love, sharing me; a female friend Clair joining hubby for sex and I discovering my strong Lesbian side with her; Clair getting accidentally pregnant and all of us deciding it was time so I quickly followed; hubby's ex Lora (those two still in love) joining us for sex and ending up staying with the family; us women having more children. For me, I can't say that I love one more than another, but I do love differently, especially between the men and my female family members. If forced to choose, I would stay with Clair and Lora over Red and David. The bond of having children together with the same men, nursing one another's babies, running the household together is incredibly strong.

 

So we love one another differently, but it is love. (We each have a physical relationship with the other, except the two guys.) All I know is that if I had to do it all over again, I'd do it all over again.

[kittyswinger 260]

I was referring to the history of Western culture, which from between the fall of the Roman Empire until at least the Enlightenment self-identified as Christendom. I intend no judgements on anyone's personal faith or religious experience.

 

I'm not currently a member of any religious organizations but I do find the Christian ethics reasonable. If I'm to believe the Nag Hammadi codices as being related to early Christianity that highly regarded women and believed on the divine feminine, it is not as horrible as many thinks. Apparently there were clerics too who disagreed with the official Church's version prior to the fall of the Roman empire. There were also 'subtleties' not mentioned in mainstream history, like many of the rationalist pioneers of the Renaissance, as well as the earlier phase of the Age of Enlightenment who vehemently opposed the Church's version of Christianity were at the same time freemasons, carrying the symbol of the rose cross. They shared the Christian ethics embodied on those gnostic codices I mentioned. It was only on the later part of the age of enlightenment and the onset of the industrial revolution that those in power adopted empiricism which is a significant departure from the earlier movements. Christianity has always been a contentious issue. Even today there is no standard way of interpretating the Christian teachings. For instance, the North American version is conservative & right leaning, while those in Latin America, Asia, Africa and some in Europe is progressive and left leaning.

[adamgunn 1,460]

>>> Even today there is no standard way of interpretating the Christian teachings

 

Wow, you said a mouthful there. Try getting a Catholic and Protestant from Northern Ireland together. And of course that particular issue looks like it's going to result in a no-deal brexit and a huge hit on the global economy. All because Christians can't believe, "Do unto others . . ."

[kittyswinger 260]

Wow, you said a mouthful there. Try getting a Catholic and Protestant from Northern Ireland together. And of course that particular issue looks like it's going to result in a no-deal brexit and a huge hit on the global economy. All because Christians can't believe, "Do unto others . . ."

Not really the Christians...but the politicians posing as Christians. It all started with Constantine "the great"! And possibly same issues with the talmud, the hadith, the sutras, etc. (extended doctrines by priests-politicians) Why most organized religions are screwed up! Imho :-P

[couplers 4,614]

I have a follow up question please

 

Q: as poly / swingers do most of you maintain and keep a current active swinger hook up site profile page? The question is posed as a "poly/ swingers perspective if you will...

We don't maintain swingers' profiles on any site, no have we ever. We just met IRL and it went from there. Same with the boyfriend that Lora Clair, and I share outside the family (two guys can't keep up with three women now that we're in our thirties). Clair, who is our stay-at-home mom, met his wife as part of a mothers' group and it was arranged to everyone's satisfaction.

[JessicaJamison 861]

I think it is not crazy to be in love with more than one person, as a parent I have two daughters and I love them both, I'd die for them.  I also live my husband, I love my parents, I love my two sisters and generally love my two brothers.  I love and miss my grandparents whom have passed. 

 

We also have a long term couple whom we have been best friends with for ten years and have been swinging with for 3 years, I love both of them deeply the same way I love my husband.  The human capacity to love is endless, and love for one does not inherently detract from the love of another, and I think you know that.  I think your actual question is one of sexual intimacy.  How can you give yourself to more than one person, and the answer is if you let go of the christian idea of one man and one woman forever and accept that love is not a finite resource it is easy to be in love with as many people as you want to be.