All for one, or one for all…

‘For pleasure has no relish unless we share it.
Virginia Woolf, The Common Reader

I saw this tweet from Coffee and Kink a short while ago and immediately responded in agreement. Yes! I do need my own primary, and not just because always coming second would drive me crazy but also because I’d find it really lonely to be on my own. It seemed so obvious that I didn’t think to add the usual qualifier of ‘for me’ to my statement. ‘For me;’ the magic words when describing sex and relationships that acknowledge the differences and variations within each of our experiences.

Although there was strong agreement from some about the need for a primary partner and the potential risks of being in open relationships without one, there was an equally strong argument against my rushed opinion. Quite a few poly friends are blissfully happy without a primary partner and, in fact, their enjoyment in being poly came from having a number of loving relationships that all had an equal standing. They neither needed nor wanted a primary partner, avoiding the perceived ties of this kind of relationship but still experiencing the benefits of each loving partnership.

And, as often happens when I realise that I may be incorrect, I have since found myself over-analysing my attitudes towards polyamory and the role of a primary partner, particularly as in my own relationship as I have frequently described myself as polyamorous despite that fact that I long thought that this label isn’t quite right.

I wonder if actually it’s more accurate that I want to be polyamorous as there is so much about polyamory that I find extremely appealing. I know and have felt compersion, the feeling of joy experienced when a loved one is happy with another partner; I love the relief of knowing that I don’t need to be everything for my partner – I am under no pressure to fulfil all of his sexual needs because he can always find someone else to take on that particular role or kink if I don’t share it; and I don’t need to ‘suffer’ jealousy when our relationship involves him looking elsewhere and that’s not only OK but also doesn’t take anything away from his feelings for me.

But, despite all of this, I want a primary partner. A long time ago, back when my fiancé was just a sex blogger I was fucking and I was just one of a number of partners that he was involved with, a friend asked me about how I saw our future. She had correctly seen that I was more in love with him than I’d chosen to admit out loud and was rightfully worried that I could be hurt by what lay ahead. ‘What if he never chooses you? What if you fall for him and he can’t give you what you want? What happens if you want more than he is willing to offer?’ At the time, I was willing to take the risk and hope for the best, but in hindsight, these were important questions. Could I have coped with being second? I don’t know that I could…

Fortunately for me, I’ve never had to work out the final answer to that question. I suspect that I would have hesitated and been reluctant to leave and allowed my heart to be slowly broken while I continued to convince myself that I was OK. I suspect that I would have needed to find someone else to be mine, to fulfil those requirements that I need from a primary partner.

As is it, my fiancé and I have found a balance that works for us. We are not monogamous, but I do have a monogamous relationship with him. In the two-plus years we’ve been together, I’ve not dated anyone else, I’ve not had sex with anyone else except when he’s watching, and I haven’t really even wanted anyone else. As I wrote way back in 2015, this type of unequal monogamy works for me because it’s not a moral choice or a sacrifice to only fuck him. I just don’t want anyone else right now. And, fortunately, it doesn’t bother me that he does.

But I think the crucial reason why I am able to be so happy in a relationship that is so uneven is exactly because I know I can rely on him; he is my primary partner and I am his, and this simple fact acts as a lifeline of sorts. It provides me with a secure and safe base from which to explore. 

Having a primary partner is also crucial to my Vulcan-inspired logical approach to reducing jealousy. I am not jealous of my fiancé’s other partners because I know how much he values me and this is much easier to believe as his primary partner. I don’t worry about competing; I don’t need to be funnier or sexier or smarter or prettier than his other lovers because I have faith that he loves me for who I am and wants to be with me and will be there for me. It’s quite a selfish attitude really – I’m always happy to share as long as he comes home to me afterwards!

It’s also important to acknowledge that there are parts of a traditional relationship that are very appealing to me. I want to make a home and a life with someone. I want to have somewhere to call home and someone waiting there to hold me. I want to have someone checking that I’m not flying too high and who would be waiting to catch me if I fall. I want to know beyond all doubt that someone has my back. I want the familiarity of lying next to someone I love whose body I know better than my own. As much as I value my independence and enjoy my own company, I do want all of these traditional trappings.

Equally, I want to be able to give that love back; to be able to share in the joy and pain of the people who I love. I want him to know he can turn to me when bad things happen and I want to support him through any crises, like I know he would support me. In a way, this is almost more important than the good stuff – when the shit hits the fan, I want him to want me there, fighting alongside him. I’m just not sure I could see someone I love struggling and have to defer to someone else to help. This is a side of a relationship that I’m not sure I could share.

So am I wrong to think of myself as polyamorous? Maybe I am.

Earlier this month, I attended a panel put on by Scarlet Ladies Talk called ‘Females Fess Up’ where the four women on the panel were asked questions on sex, relationships and other body- and sex-positive topics. It was just brilliant! At one point, two of the panellists, Alyssa Black and Frankie Cookney, were asked about being polyamorous. Alyssa’s description of polyamory was the one that I was expecting and involved being in a number of different loving relationships. Frankie, however, chose to be defined as ‘non-monogamous’ rather than ‘polyamorous’ because she felt this was a more accurate description of her relationship.

That this was a separate and different option was a surprisingly groundbreaking idea for me as, perhaps naively, I’d always thought of non-monogamy as just an umbrella term to describe all types of open relationships. Frankie’s version of this term, however, was much more specific and much more familiar. She didn’t feel that polyamory was an accurate term for her because she didn’t have a ‘loving relationship’ with anyone but her husband, her primary partner. They both dated other people and slept with other people, but there wasn’t anyone yet who she loved in the romantic sense. She was non-monogamous, not polyamorous.

So am I non-monogamous or polyamorous? My relationship with labels has always been reluctant at best and frankly avoidant most of the time so does it really matter? Does exploring the nuances of these descriptive words give me greater insight into my relationship? And if not, does a better and more correct use of terminology help others looking in to understand? Should I care about that?

I think non-monogamy is probably a more technically accurate description our relationship right now. Despite this, I find that I often just say that we are polyamorous, particularly when talking to friends outside of this sex positive bubble, to explain in one word a much more complex arrangement without really needing to go into the finer details. In the end, my fiancé and I know how our relationship works and where the limits are, and I’m very happy with that, even if I am describing it incorrectly.

I just need to remember to add ‘for me’ to any comments or opinions on polyamory or open relationships!

If you’re interested, the wonderful Exposing 40 has written a post on the opposite perspective; on why she doesn’t want to have a primary partner and why she chooses to always come second.

35 thoughts on “All for one, or one for all…

  1. I relate to a lot of what you say here. I don’t define my relationship identity as polyamorous. Not because I don’t love people outside of my marriage, but because that label has become highly politicized and implies a certain value set that I don’t necessarily adhere to.

    I *do* believe in primary partnerships (which is a very unpopular and old-fashioned idea in poly circles where I live), and mine is an anchor in a lot of the ways you describe.

    I, too, consider “non-monogamous” to be a much more accurate descriptor. Or perhaps, ethically non-monogamous. While I can see your perspective on its use as an umbrella term for open relationships (my marital relationship is, despite appearances, NOT “open” – it is very concisely structured and ancillary partners are limited to specific, well monitored points of entry), it sums up much more precisely (though I don’t think that’s really possible without writing a tome) what it is that we do.

    A n y w a y

    That was a long way of saying, “I grok.”

    Thanks for writing this.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Non monogamous rather than polyamourous feels easier for me too. I know who I love and who loves me and there is of course the potential for loving others too but right now I am conscious of a need to be a primary. A solid base is an essential for me. Sometimes that comes with all the expected life trimmings of shared home and family and sometimes it doesn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Your piece has made me think. My primary provides the love and security but not the sex. My lovers provide the sex but one provides more. Until I met people via blogging and Twitter I never realised there were “labels” I don’t want to be labelled as anything so I have not defined myself. However you have given me food for thought x

    Liked by 1 person

  4. This post sounds right to me as well. I’ve thought for a long time now that polyamory is *hard* and is definitely not for everyone; a thought which may be encapsulated in the notion that “if sustaining and growing a committed relationship / marriage is inevitably difficult (at times), imagine more than one”. – It takes a lot of stamina (and thus, a deep-seated, authentic need) to fly, simply on grounds that meeting everyone’s emotional needs (including one’s own) in a way that is fair, is not easy. But I like to think of nonmonogamy as a continuum with endless nuances; and also as a journey, as needs and preferences may shift over time (“writing a tome”, as Mrs. Fever put it, made me smile – sounds right, too!). Thank you for sharing. Very insightful post.

    Like

  5. I think that you have a long and remarkable marriage ahead of you from which to explore endless possibilities and changes together, and the fun will be in findind out all the answers as time goes by 🙂

    Like

  6. I have always said that you have to define the label for you not try to define yourself by the label so I think writing pieces like this can really help with that.

    We call ourselves monogamish, which means we are mainly monogamous but also open to other possibilities

    Mollyx

    Like

  7. There’s so much possible nuance that labels fail to capture, and then when you find a label where the denotations are close, the connotations may be wrong.

    I started out monogamous, then negotiated with my partner to allow one specific exception. My partner remains monogamous. My relationship with my lover is loving, emotionally supportive, and sexual. That falls within the definition of polyamory that I’ve heard, and yet polyamory seems to connote much more openness than this. If it wasn’t an oxymoron, I’d be inclined to say I have two monogamous relationships 😉

    The label doesn’t come up as a practical issue because, aside from the blog, I don’t tell anyone about it. But if I had to pick one, I’d probably go with (ethically) non-monogamous (for me, the “ethical” part is obvious and mandatory). Monogamish would also work, but I just don’t care for it as a word.

    Like

  8. The 140 characters on Twitter don’t do any justice to my feelings on this post!

    Firstly, I just wanted to say thank you for sharing a personal perspective. I know you wanted to highlight the ‘for me’ aspect, but it is all of these personal perspectives which can help others struggling with such labels come to terms with the fact that what they have can be different, not fit the norms and that’s absolutely fine. It’s settling and reassuring. I think Girl on the Nets words are so relevant here: ‘No one does what you do quite like you!’

    So ‘for me’, I’ve never been a primary partner in anything resembling an ‘open relationship’- in whatever form that takes. I’m very happy with this! But I’ve had brilliant monogamous relationships where polyamory hasn’t been a consideration. I enter every relationship with careful consideration, and being a second or even just a casual partner in any situation enables me to know exactly where I stand. I must also reiterate something you weaved into your blog post so well: honest, open, clear communication. This is important for everyone involved, and has helped me feel confident, comfortable and happy in my actions and decisions.

    I imagine this is even more important as a primary (or perhaps we are all people and deserve clear communication on all accounts), but I don’t have the experience to comment on that.

    I think what I’m trying to convey in a ‘Sunday morning, full of Easter eggs’ waffling, incoherent sense is that communication enables me to enjoy a diverse range of relationships and experiences. And it’s refreshing to hear your ideas of polyamory, non-monogamy and how you balance this with a desire for the ‘traditional’ things- this is something I contend with a lot.

    Thanks for being awesome!

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I love this on so many levels but probably (mostly) because your definition of what this means for you echoes much of how John Brownstone and I feel about it. We are just on the cusp of this new phase in our relationship – still in the talking phases, still figuring out what it means *for us* (there’s that phrase again, lol). And I think that, ultimately, we have to define these things for ourselves. Sometimes, our definition will closely match someone else’s and sometimes it won’t, but it’s all valid.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. As I read this, I found myself nodding at places or shaking my head in others, as I thought about my relationship with Master T, but also those we have outside our marriage. Or rather, those I have outside our marriage. If I really have to put a label on those, I go with what Molly said: we are monogamish…

    But there’s so much more to think about, not only after reading your post, but also after reading that of Exposing40 🙂

    Rebel xox

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: Elust 94 - elust
  12. Pingback: Elust 94 -

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s