1. Anonymous asked: Hmm, well the reason I ask is that I really like the sound of the two particular relationships that you described in your resent post about polyamory. I guess I want to know, how did those relationships go from being strangers saying hello, to being the way they are now? And how did you come to find people who are open to having relationships that are like that (seeing as most people probably aren't)?

    Ahhhh, I seeeee! Well, erm, there was nothing remarkable about either of those meetings, except the wonderful and interesting people in them of course. If you just want to know about the two people I mentioned in that last big blog post…

    One was a friend of my boyfriend in uni; my boyfriend was sharing a student flat thingy with this guy, and this guy ended up with this girl, and eventually they all moved in together and I moved in with them, and she was beautiful and I found it really easy to be around her (such a rare combination!), and somehow her boyfriend didn’t mind, and other distracting infatuations came and went but she never stopped waiting for me, and now they are married and he still doesn’t mind and she is still waiting and I love her so much. They are both some of my most favourite people and I hate that my various illness stuff means I can’t express that as much as I want to.

    The other I met on a festival campsite when I had to walk through their camp circle to get to my own. They had a rule: you can walk through our circle whenever you like, but you have to say hello. So me and my friends said hi, and me and this person never said a word to each other before we knew that we had to have more conversations. So we were like, “let’s have some more conversations.” Our particular thing has shifted lots of times since that moment but it still feels the same to me. It went casual, sexual, staying-at-your-house-out-of-necessity, sexual again, totally not sexual so why am I still visiting you?, camping-in-your-spare-room-for-my-mental-health while helping each other to survive, and now: neighbours who are disabled and help each other in order to avoid serious neglect plus occasional cuddling.

    I posted, and then realised that I haven’t answered your second question: how did I find people who are open to such things.

    I tell people who I am and how I do things and why, and the people who like it stick around. If I like what they’re about then I put effort into sticking around them. I might or might not be intimate with any of these people, depending on various factors like shared trust and love and comfort and ease and adaptability. I kinda feel like this answer is unhelpful; isn’t this how friends happen? I feel like I’ve been asked “how do you find people who are into the same bands you’re into?” or something. Maybe I have misunderstood?

     
  2. 00:04

    Notes: 3

    Tags: polyamoryAnonymous

    Anonymous asked: How did you meet/get together with your poly partners?

    Hang on, I need to eat avocado brownies before I can answer that.

    *omnomnom*

    *thinks*

    I’m ignoring the “get together” bit ‘cause it doesn’t make sense to me.

    The same way I meet anyone, really. Friends of friends, or being in the same place at the same time and it being circumstantially easy to say hello. There’s no magical partner-meeting formula that’s different from the friend-making formula. Partners and friends are the same thing to me.

    But then, I’m assuming that you’re asking how I met all of my poly partners ever, in a general sense. It’s possible you’re actually asking me how I met my *current* poly partners. Can you be more specific? Which of my friends are partners, and what makes them so? Why do you only want to know about the friends that you think are more special to me? Are you only interested in the ones who identify as polyamorous?

    I suspect it’s becoming apparent that my attitude to relationships and love doesn’t fit into the usual assumptions…

     
  3. Aromance, asexuality, and polyamory

    go-blondie-go:

    [I cut out some stuff for focus; click here to read it.]

    Also, how does asexuality and aromanticism work with polyamory? That sounds contradictory.

    For context, go-blondie-go is referring to this bit from my profile: "asexual, aromantic, very connected to polyamory. For the moment, anyway."

    It seems you’re familiar with the working definitions, go-blondie-go, but just in case some readers aren’t:

    • asexual - does not experience sexual attraction
    • aromantic - does not experience romantic attraction
    • polyamorous - is able to engage in multiple loving (usually romantic or sexual) relationships at once

    To begin with, I am definitely not monogamous. But I am also very cautious about calling myself poly, because I share your skepticism. I went as far as coming out as not-poly on my poly webcomic. But the thing is, everyone responded and said that I fit under the poly umbrella anyway.

    I found the wikipedia page on Romance to be helpful. But the way I try to wangle it is this. Do I have any relationships that a hypothetical stereotypical monogamous spouse would have an issue with? And I find that the answer is yes. I’ve got one partner (and I’m not even sure that’s the right word!) who lives a billion miles away and is married, but there is definitely a thing there that I cannot define. I love her a lot and we are occasionally (and I mean occasionally) sexual but that doesn’t make it “more” relationshippy. I even hope that we have sex again because I like feeling that way with her. I don’t want her romantically or sexually, but when I check internally I still want her a LOT. This has been a subject of bafflement for both of us, but we’re just going with it to see what happens, and have been doing so for many years.

    And then there’s the person I spend most of my time with; we are very close, we do most of our stuff together for disability support stuff, but we are also sometimes very cuddly and smooshy in a way that is just very physically affectionate. It is not, however, romantic. We don’t have what we call the “bargains” that most romantic couples do; there is no promise that we will continue to spend time together, and no assumption (that we will always be up for cuddles or talking about stuff that requires trust, or even that we will trust each other). But if I had a husband or wife, they would be extremely pissed off at the amount of time we spend together, the amount of information I trust them with, the snuggling we sometimes do, etc.

    My hypothetical spouse would no longer feel special or necessary, because I can get so much of what I need from others.

    And on top of all this, my closeness with these people and my hypothetical spouse does not change how I approach the world, which is with openness. I never ever wonder, when meeting someone, if I should behave differently because of any existing friendships or intimate relationships, and if I meet someone I want to be close to, I will not be happy to let myself be trusting and open with them until they know that they’re not the only person I’m intimate with and they’re comfortable with that.

    Poly people see all of this, and they call me polyamorous. I’m okay with this! :) It’s a great umbrella to stand under, and the company is good. I don’t tend to call myself polyamorous, but I do have a significant connection to polyamory. Denying that would be foolish, I think.

    I just know that someone’s going to ask how it’s not romantic or sexual if it is intimate. So I will answer it preemptively. ;) There are ways of being intimate that involve neither sex nor romance, and everyone will experience this differently. It takes me a very very long time to trust someone, for example; both of my relationships that I call intimate involve a lot of trust. Both relationships involve a physical and behavioural ease that I don’t experience with most people. And then of course there’s the love, which I reckon there’s a lot of. But I don’t have with either of them “a feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love”, or “a quality or feeling of mystery, excitement, and remoteness from everyday life”, which is what appears when I google romance definition.

    Sure, a lot of romantic relationships have what I have with these people, but there’s something the romantic folks have that I don’t.

     
  4. image: Download

    funcrunch:

lottelodge:

rachitect:

lottelodge:

rachitect:

lottelodge, this is how it looks in the app, stateside. Not sure if there are other qualifiers somewhere.

Innnnteresting. I’d like it if it said “in a relationship; nonmonogamous” or something. Open relationship has a very specific definition, y’know? Like, if their questions and answers say one thing and the resulting profile says something entirely different…
However, I am not a member of any online dating sites, so what do I know? ;)

Yeah, there are a lot of single non-mono and poly people out there! It, like much poly in the mainstream, privileges couples!! But I do prefer the label to ‘Available’ which honestly just confused most people.

They should get a poly consultant, like Facebook getting a trans* person to sort out the gender stuff.

What “very specific definition” does open relationship have to you?
I’ve been in open relationships for over 15 years. Back when I used OKCupid I never had any trouble finding poly people on there to date. (I now only date experienced poly people; I’ve been burned by “poly while single” or people who weren’t really ready to be in open relationships too many times.)
The new monogamous/nonmonogamous option might be nice for those who didn’t realize that relationship style was already supported I guess. But I won’t be back until and unless OKC explicitly supports nonbinary genders, which I don’t expect to happen anytime soon.

I have heard good things from poly folk about finding partners through OKcupid. :)
The “in an open relationship” thing is something I’ve not really pinned down into words before, so I’ll probably miss things or say things wrong, but I’m going to give it a go and then others can enhance or correct my explanation.
"In an open relationship" starts out by saying you’re in "a" relationship, singular. Lots of poly people aren’t in just one, or are single, so if you say you’re non-monogamous and it labels you as "in an open relationship" people are going to have the wrong impression right away. It’s saying you’re in a relationship with one person, when it might be more than one, or none, when the impression it should at least try to give is "this person does not seek an exclusive relationship with one person".
This next bit might just be my feeling and not a general thing. Open relationship says to me, “we are in a special romantic relationship and this person is my primary, but they let me see other people as long as this one relationship is the most important to me.” I do realise that not everyone will mean this when they say they’re in an open relationship, but that’s what people have meant when they’ve said “open relationship” to me.
When people are trying to express something else, they tend to use more words (like, “I have a [boy/girl/enby]friend, and I am looking for another partner”) or they say “I’m in (a) poly relationship(s).”

    funcrunch:

    lottelodge:

    rachitect:

    lottelodge:

    rachitect:

    lottelodge, this is how it looks in the app, stateside. Not sure if there are other qualifiers somewhere.

    Innnnteresting. I’d like it if it said “in a relationship; nonmonogamous” or something. Open relationship has a very specific definition, y’know? Like, if their questions and answers say one thing and the resulting profile says something entirely different…

    However, I am not a member of any online dating sites, so what do I know? ;)

    Yeah, there are a lot of single non-mono and poly people out there! It, like much poly in the mainstream, privileges couples!! But I do prefer the label to ‘Available’ which honestly just confused most people.

    They should get a poly consultant, like Facebook getting a trans* person to sort out the gender stuff.

    What “very specific definition” does open relationship have to you?

    I’ve been in open relationships for over 15 years. Back when I used OKCupid I never had any trouble finding poly people on there to date. (I now only date experienced poly people; I’ve been burned by “poly while single” or people who weren’t really ready to be in open relationships too many times.)

    The new monogamous/nonmonogamous option might be nice for those who didn’t realize that relationship style was already supported I guess. But I won’t be back until and unless OKC explicitly supports nonbinary genders, which I don’t expect to happen anytime soon.

    I have heard good things from poly folk about finding partners through OKcupid. :)

    The “in an open relationship” thing is something I’ve not really pinned down into words before, so I’ll probably miss things or say things wrong, but I’m going to give it a go and then others can enhance or correct my explanation.

    "In an open relationship" starts out by saying you’re in "a" relationship, singular. Lots of poly people aren’t in just one, or are single, so if you say you’re non-monogamous and it labels you as "in an open relationship" people are going to have the wrong impression right away. It’s saying you’re in a relationship with one person, when it might be more than one, or none, when the impression it should at least try to give is "this person does not seek an exclusive relationship with one person".

    This next bit might just be my feeling and not a general thing. Open relationship says to me, “we are in a special romantic relationship and this person is my primary, but they let me see other people as long as this one relationship is the most important to me.” I do realise that not everyone will mean this when they say they’re in an open relationship, but that’s what people have meant when they’ve said “open relationship” to me.

    When people are trying to express something else, they tend to use more words (like, “I have a [boy/girl/enby]friend, and I am looking for another partner”) or they say “I’m in (a) poly relationship(s).”

    (Source: five-sixths)

     
  5. 13:31

    Notes: 15

    Reblogged from five-sixths

    Tags: polyamoryokcupidnonmonogamy

    image: Download

    rachitect:

lottelodge:

rachitect:

lottelodge, this is how it looks in the app, stateside. Not sure if there are other qualifiers somewhere.

Innnnteresting. I’d like it if it said “in a relationship; nonmonogamous” or something. Open relationship has a very specific definition, y’know? Like, if their questions and answers say one thing and the resulting profile says something entirely different…
However, I am not a member of any online dating sites, so what do I know? ;)

Yeah, there are a lot of single non-mono and poly people out there! It, like much poly in the mainstream, privileges couples!! But I do prefer the label to ‘Available’ which honestly just confused most people.

They should get a poly consultant, like Facebook getting a trans* person to sort out the gender stuff.

    rachitect:

    lottelodge:

    rachitect:

    lottelodge, this is how it looks in the app, stateside. Not sure if there are other qualifiers somewhere.

    Innnnteresting. I’d like it if it said “in a relationship; nonmonogamous” or something. Open relationship has a very specific definition, y’know? Like, if their questions and answers say one thing and the resulting profile says something entirely different…

    However, I am not a member of any online dating sites, so what do I know? ;)

    Yeah, there are a lot of single non-mono and poly people out there! It, like much poly in the mainstream, privileges couples!! But I do prefer the label to ‘Available’ which honestly just confused most people.

    They should get a poly consultant, like Facebook getting a trans* person to sort out the gender stuff.

     
  6. 13:02

    Notes: 15

    Reblogged from five-sixths

    Tags: polyamoryonline datingokcupid

    image: Download

    rachitect:

lottelodge, this is how it looks in the app, stateside. Not sure if there are other qualifiers somewhere.

Innnnteresting. I’d like it if it said “in a relationship; nonmonogamous” or something. Open relationship has a very specific definition, y’know? Like, if their questions and answers say one thing and the resulting profile says something entirely different…
However, I am not a member of any online dating sites, so what do I know? ;)

    rachitect:

    lottelodge, this is how it looks in the app, stateside. Not sure if there are other qualifiers somewhere.

    Innnnteresting. I’d like it if it said “in a relationship; nonmonogamous” or something. Open relationship has a very specific definition, y’know? Like, if their questions and answers say one thing and the resulting profile says something entirely different…

    However, I am not a member of any online dating sites, so what do I know? ;)

     
  7. image: Download

    kay-is-for-kookie:

Hey OkCupid people - OkCupid now officially has non-monogamy options! :)
allcurledupgoingnya has just brought this to my attention - in the basic profile bits, they now have a relationship type drop-down which lets you specify whether or not you’re monogamous (although I’m not sure what mostly/strictly really mean as qualifiers in this regard). It’s not searchable (yet!) and it’s kinda off to the side instead of with your central profile info, but it’s excellent progress and it means OkCupid has been listening to all the feedback, so I’m hoping to see further work on this (and maybe gender/sexuality options too)!

    kay-is-for-kookie:

    Hey OkCupid people - OkCupid now officially has non-monogamy options! :)

    allcurledupgoingnya has just brought this to my attention - in the basic profile bits, they now have a relationship type drop-down which lets you specify whether or not you’re monogamous (although I’m not sure what mostly/strictly really mean as qualifiers in this regard). It’s not searchable (yet!) and it’s kinda off to the side instead of with your central profile info, but it’s excellent progress and it means OkCupid has been listening to all the feedback, so I’m hoping to see further work on this (and maybe gender/sexuality options too)!

     
  8. How very dare they be so misleading.

    Exactly! I demand an alternate reality episode immediately!

     
  9. Netflix always makes me want to watch The Vampire Diaries because the cover makes it look like the three leads are in a sexy sub/Dom triad and they never are.

    Netflix always makes me want to watch The Vampire Diaries because the cover makes it look like the three leads are in a sexy sub/Dom triad and they never are.

     
  10. 12:04 5th Jan 2014

    Notes: 6830

    Reblogged from aturnofphrase

    Tags: polyamory

    militantbarbie:

sentientcitizen:

Kitten, Brynn, and Doll’s rainbow garden of poly love three-bride wedding:

I’d like to welcome you to a most unusual wedding. In our society today, no wedding is really “normal.” Our polyglot nation has blended together so many ideas of what it means to be married, and how one goes about doing it, that there is truly no one true way to structure a marriage ceremony. But even by modern standards, where blended families are the new norm, where ceremonies invoke ancient customs alongside modern creations, where in a seemingly ever-increasing number of states and countries, anyone can marry the person that they love, this is a most unusual wedding.
Today we have gathered to witness the union of Brynn, Kitten, and Doll. We are here today to offer them our love and our blessings as they embark on the next phase of their lives together. To some, they represent the “slippery slope” we were warned about. In truth, what they are about to do today is as old as mankind. While modern humans may have invented the word “polyamory,” or “many loves,” we certainly didn’t invent the idea. Multiple adult relationships are as old as we are as a species. Every major culture on the planet has had some form of multiple marriage. Every major religion has allowed it at some point, and some still do. Numerous holy men from the Old Testament had multiple wives. Arjuna, a Hindu hero in the Mahabharata, shares his wife with his brothers, one of whom later marries as well. To modern Pagans, all acts of love are holy to the Goddess. Ecclesiastes 4:12 says that though one person may be overpowered, two can support each other, and a chord of three strands is not quickly broken.
Three strands.
Today, Brynn, Kitten and Doll will forge their own three-strand chord. This ceremony is very much their creation, a modern blend of the old and the new, to mark the new beginning of their lives together as a family.

I’M NOT CRYING I JUST HAVE SOMETHING IN MY EYE
fffffffuck the amazingness of these three ladies


This was pretty much my childhood dream.

    militantbarbie:

    sentientcitizen:

    Kitten, Brynn, and Doll’s rainbow garden of poly love three-bride wedding:

    I’d like to welcome you to a most unusual wedding. In our society today, no wedding is really “normal.” Our polyglot nation has blended together so many ideas of what it means to be married, and how one goes about doing it, that there is truly no one true way to structure a marriage ceremony. But even by modern standards, where blended families are the new norm, where ceremonies invoke ancient customs alongside modern creations, where in a seemingly ever-increasing number of states and countries, anyone can marry the person that they love, this is a most unusual wedding.

    Today we have gathered to witness the union of Brynn, Kitten, and Doll. We are here today to offer them our love and our blessings as they embark on the next phase of their lives together. To some, they represent the “slippery slope” we were warned about. In truth, what they are about to do today is as old as mankind. While modern humans may have invented the word “polyamory,” or “many loves,” we certainly didn’t invent the idea. Multiple adult relationships are as old as we are as a species. Every major culture on the planet has had some form of multiple marriage. Every major religion has allowed it at some point, and some still do. Numerous holy men from the Old Testament had multiple wives. Arjuna, a Hindu hero in the Mahabharata, shares his wife with his brothers, one of whom later marries as well. To modern Pagans, all acts of love are holy to the Goddess. Ecclesiastes 4:12 says that though one person may be overpowered, two can support each other, and a chord of three strands is not quickly broken.

    Three strands.

    Today, Brynn, Kitten and Doll will forge their own three-strand chord. This ceremony is very much their creation, a modern blend of the old and the new, to mark the new beginning of their lives together as a family.

    I’M NOT CRYING I JUST HAVE SOMETHING IN MY EYE

    fffffffuck the amazingness of these three ladies

    This was pretty much my childhood dream.