# RIP Relationship, 1998-2010
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [July 3, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394 "2010-07-03T04:01:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/81 "2010-07-09T06:55:44Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#):
>
> The sword of Damocles may be there for everyone - but it’s a LOT closer for the person whose partner makes it clear from the start that they won’t even try to stay faithful.
But that isn’t what happened here. That’s not even close to what happened here. Are you willfully ignoring that to try to hammer on your anti-poly perspective or do you really not get that?
Even from a broader perspective, that’s not what a poly situation is, because “staying faithful” by _your_ definition isn’t a part of the expectations from the start, the faithfulness within a poly situation isn’t to the monogamist ideal of “there will never be anyone else” but to the specific needs and desires of the parties involved in the relationship. These things are negotiated and renegotiated and discussed. You seem to be presuming that things are just taken for granted, and that’s not how anything should work in any kind of healthy relationship.
---
### Author:  [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/82 "2010-07-09T07:00:58Z")
Further up, the argument was made that this was effectively a monogamous relationship. You can’t have it both ways.
---
### Author:  [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/83 "2010-07-09T07:24:57Z")
Look, the point is this:
If one half is operating from a monogamous POV, the poly disclaimer upon formally committing to the relationship will only undermine that person’s ability to fully trust the other person, essentially dooming the relationship from day one. Even if the poly half stays faithful the entire time, so long as they reserve the right to sleep with others at any time in the future, trust issues will persist.
It’s a relationship built on sand. The erosion simply took 12 years to occur.
---
### Author:  [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/84 "2010-07-09T08:12:28Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#):
>
> But that isn’t what happened here. That’s not even close to what happened here. Are you willfully ignoring that to try to hammer on your anti-poly perspective or do you really not get that?
Bovine manure, it’s exactly what happened here. The fact that the relationship was ‘de facto’ monogamous is beside the point. The OP made it clear from the start that he would only promise to tell the basic details when/if had other sex partners. He didn’t promise -not- to have other sex partners. There is a huge difference in the level of emotional investment each side is making. The OP’s partner made it clear that, while not 100% happy with the promise, she would accept it, even though she would probably be hurt bad enough to want to end the relationship.
As such, the only reason the OP didn’t have other sex partners during the time was not because he was fully committed to Herself - which is what monogamy is - but because ‘he didn’t want to hurt her’. In other words - the very excuse he so derisively dismissed those of us who are monogamous! As I said before - just because the OP is incapable of making such a commitment, don’t insult the rest of us who can and do.
He called this ‘his experiment in orthodox monogamy’, but that is a pathetic joke, and it’s also an incredibly insult to Herself - I’m sure she’d be thrililed to know that he’s describing a 12-year relationship as ‘an experiement’. But monogamy is not just about not putting your dick into other women. It’s about committing fully to one relationship, and only one relationship, because that’s what you want to do, not out of some sense of guilt or sacrifice.
I don’t call myself a vegetarian if I pass up a steak at dinner and have the salad bar instead. Just because he went a period of time only in one relationship doesn’t mean he has a clue what monogamy is, and this relationship was most certainly -not- monogamous, since both parties did not start the relationship on the same terms.
Look, I’m sure the OP is a great guy to go out to have beers with. But I wouldn’t want him dating my sister or any of my female friends.
---
### Author:  [@nicole1912](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nicole1912)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/85 "2010-07-09T11:32:58Z")
How on earth is “being in a relationship where you don’t sleep with anyone else, out of respect for the feelings of your partner” actually _worse_ in your mind than “being in a relationship where you don’t sleep with anyone else, because you said you wouldn’t at the very beginning”? Functionally, what’s the difference?
If you didn’t eat meat for 12 years, wouldn’t you consider yourself vegetarian for all intents and purposes? Regardless of why it is that you’re not eating meat? I certainly would, and I think most people would.
And I get that you don’t like poly people. You don’t like poly relationships. Fine. (Although your sister and/or your female friends might, and I don’t think their relationship status is up to you. Which is a good thing.) But why come in to this thread and loudly proclaim how childish poly relationships are and how superior your own, monogamous, way of life is? Not only is it harsh on poor **AHunter3** , who has just split up with his long-term partner, but it’s more or less irrelevant, since their relationship actually _was_ monogamous.
**AHunter3** , I’m sorry to continue the hijack of your thread. I wish you and your ex all the best, and hope that things work out well for you both, whether you get back together or not. I think you’ve been remarkably calm in the face of some nasty attacks in this thread, and I admire you for that. I hope you’re doing ok; look after yourself.
---
### Author:  [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/86 "2010-07-09T11:46:13Z")
> [@nicole1912](#):
>
> How on earth is “being in a relationship where you don’t sleep with anyone else, out of respect for the feelings of your partner” actually _worse_ in your mind than “being in a relationship where you don’t sleep with anyone else, because you said you wouldn’t at the very beginning”? Functionally, what’s the difference?
As has been explained, it’s about fostering a sense of trust. The latter is a stated commitment to the relationship–without that commitment (and, indeed, with an explicit statement that you may, at any time, choose to sleep with another person), the other person is left to wonder when the other shoe will drop.
---
### Author:  [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/87 "2010-07-09T12:26:07Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#):
>
> As such, the only reason the OP didn’t have other sex partners during the time was not because he was fully committed to Herself - which is what monogamy is - but because ‘he didn’t want to hurt her’. In other words - the very excuse he so derisively dismissed those of us who are monogamous! As I said before - just because the OP is incapable of making such a commitment, don’t insult the rest of us who can and do.
So his rationale for being faithful is insufficient, is that what you’re getting at? That he should’ve been faithful because of the ideal of a commitment rather than because he cared about the wellbeing of his partner?
---
### Author:  [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/88 "2010-07-09T12:30:42Z")
I daresay it’s insufficient for someone who, ideally, is looking for a monogamous partner.
---
### Author:  [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/89 "2010-07-09T14:47:54Z")
> [@AHunter3](#):
>
> It isn’t the polyamourous who are most often characterized by selfishness (“If you loved me you would not do what you want with your body, you would do what I want”), possessiveness (“I need to own you, you don’t get to have anyone else”), widespread dishonesty (what you folks call “cheating”), insecurity (the emotional energy you waste on worrying about “cheating”), distrust (“I found a guy’s phone number in her wallet what should I do”), or sanctimoniousness (yes I know I’m guilty of it myself on this subject, but you’ve eclipsed me at my most self-righteous & pompous).
> I understand what it is like to be biased against a way of life that makes no sense to you, because I have been biased against monogamy / sexual exclusivity.
“Have been,” my big fat ass. You _are_ biased against monogamy/sexual exclusivity, and are being every bit as shitty as you accuse others of being. You don’t get to deliberately paint someone else’s lifestyle and motivations in the very worst possible terms and then put on the wounded doe routine when the big mean bullies do the same to you.
(And just fyi, that is no more what monogamy is about than being promiscuous is what being poly is about. It’s not about owning or controlling someone, it’s about setting boundaries about what you can and can’t handle, no different than what any poly relationship does. The boundaries are just in different places. It’s not a matter of “If you loved me, you would/wouldn’t do xyz” but a matter of “If you do/don’t do xyz, I can’t be with you.” You’re as guilty of that as the rest of us, since you pretty much told your ex that if you couldn’t sleep with other people, you couldn’t be with her. So get off the high horse, already.)
> [@SCSimmons](#):
>
> (“… with their own kind?” Nice. :rolleyes:)
I don’t see as it’s any less nice than what the OP was saying about monogamous people. He ought not dish it out if he can’t take it.
> [@AHunter3](#):
>
> Yes, I think so. Having someone else to talk it over, and go over how they’ve resolved similar / parallel issues with their boyfriends, helps; and just making it to that GF#1 doesn’t have to be my ONLY significant emotional outlet. Seriously, no one should have to life up to that!
Yeah, us monogamous people have folks like that–they’re called friends. This is the pro-poly argument that has just never made a lick of sense to me, this conflation of sexual/romantic exclusivity with not having anyone else in your life to give and get love/support/companionship. _Of course_ nobody can be everything to anyone else. That’s why we have kids, parents, friends, pets, hobbies, jobs.
---
### Author:  [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/90 "2010-07-09T15:06:17Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#):
>
> So his rationale for being faithful is insufficient, is that what you’re getting at? That he should’ve been faithful because of the ideal of a commitment rather than because he cared about the wellbeing of his partner?
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, how many times do we have to go over this? The rationale is a moot point. The OP never said he’d be faithful at all. He said that his values were such that he could and would likely be shagging others and possibly falling in love with others, while in the relationship with Herself.
The fact that it didn’t happen for a while is completely beside the point: the OP always had that option available to him, and Herself always had to be wondering when the other shoe would drop.
---
### Author:  [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/91 "2010-07-09T15:21:27Z")
> [@AHunter3](#):
>
> I cannot be counted among the fans of monogamy, but I suppose at least in the hypothetical one could postulate a person whose redeeming characteristics are of sufficiently compelling quality that one could reference that person as an intrinsic justification for monogamy, as in “if you could be with this person how could you ever conceive of wanting to be with anyone else?”
Honest question: if you found yourself feeling exactly that, would you let yourself be open to it and allow yourself to be monogamous?
I ask because, much to my surprise, I did. When we first got together, I even used your line (that you posted once long ago): “I neither promise nor accept promises of monogamy.” But imagine my shock when just a month later, I realized that, wow, he really \*does \*fulfill all my needs, all those things I thought I needed multiple people to fulfill. And he does it even better than any combination of my poly relationships in the past. That was a shocker. And of course, given my past, he’s very reluctant to believe that, despite being serially monogamous all his own life. We’re still working on it. Ironically, the best way I’ve found so far to reassure him that I’m really okay with monogamy is to tell him that if we find someone to share together, I’d be open to that. He’s afraid that a promise of total monogamy at this point would be insincere or “changing” me, and as he fell in love with the whole “free spirit” poly person, he doesn’t want me to resent him for “forcing” me to change. I get it, I really do. If the shoe were on the other foot, I’d be waiting for it to drop, too. But it’s frustrating now that I actually WANT to be monogamous to him! (I don’t care much if he’s monogamous to me, but I do care deeply that he be safe, open and honest if he finds another partner.)
I don’t think monogamy is the answer for everyone, but I do hope that if you feel that way about someone in the future, you won’t throw it away because you self identify as polyamorous, y’know? Don’t let the label control you.
> [@Lobot](#):
>
> The polyamorous half earns my contempt, not because they are poly but because they are a user who showed no consideration for the other half’s emotional well-being.
Hmm…couldn’t one just as easily say that \*she \*showed no consideration for \*his \*emotional well-being, holding her own Sword over his head despite his honesty about his lifestyle? I think they’re about even on that scale.
---
### Author:  [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/92 "2010-07-09T17:58:39Z")
With one person for 12 years, then completely alone, mulling strip clubs and (apparently non-existent) “cuddle parties”? Polyamory isn’t the glamorous lifestyle I’d imagined it to be…
---
### Author:  [@PotLuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PotLuck)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/93 "2010-07-09T18:48:07Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#):
>
> Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, how many times do we have to go over this? The rationale is a moot point. The OP never said he’d be faithful at all. He said that his values were such that he could and would likely be shagging others and possibly falling in love with others, while in the relationship with Herself.
>
> The fact that it didn’t happen for a while is completely beside the point: the OP always had that option available to him, and Herself always had to be wondering when the other shoe would drop.
Indeed, which is why I don’t understand why **AHunter3** would even consider reuniting with Herself. I presume she’s still wants monogamy and he, according to the OP, wants to “live a polyamourous lifestyle”, right? So, if they get back together does that mean is **AHunter3** has chosen to continue suppressing his need/desire for multiple partners and be content with the love of one woman who loves him exclusively? I hope so, because if the original relationship was a “recipe for disaster”, the second time 'round is a 3" thick cookbook.
Being a single middle-aged man seeking cuddle parties and polyamourous women is probably no picnic. It’s also a poor reason to return to a failing relationship with a monogamous woman.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/94 "2010-07-12T18:35:07Z")
I got directed here by a Pit thread, and I’m not particularly interested in exploring the differences of opinion in this thread that led to the Pit thread being started. But I find myself curious about an aspect of the defunct relationship that I don’t think has been exhaustively discussed.
OP, during the twelve years that the two of you were together, did you have many (or any) conversations about the fact that you were polyamorous and she serially monogamous? Other than the one at the beginning, I mean.
---
### Author:  [@Dunkelheit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunkelheit)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/95 "2010-07-12T21:08:16Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#):
>
> This concept is something I’ve toyed around in my head for a while and still haven’t reached a decision on. I have to admit that it sounds good in theory; but in practice, I’m not so sure things work so neatly. If a person stops meeting your emotional and physical needs sufficiently enough to keep you happy, then how strong is your relationship? Or rather, how deep is it? If someone else provided you with that missing thing, it doesn’t follow that you would suddenly want to be intimate with your girlfriend, does it? Odds are, you’d give that initimacy to the person who supplied you with the thing you wanted.
The idea is that both relationships provide something essential, even if both cannot provide EVERYTHING essential. In my experience, if done properly, the energy and wellbeing generated by filling the gap left in one relationship with another relationship spills over into the original relationship as well, enhancing and strengthening feelings for both partners. Especially if the pressure is taken off someone to provide something they couldn’t, so that what they CAN provide can be freely offered and enjoyed. And I’m not talking about sex specifically, though that is one aspect of these things, it’s not the only consideration nor the most important.
Obviously if the original relationship has degraded so that there’s nothing essential left that it provides, it would be easy for a good new relationship to supplant rather than supplement it. But, if it is really that insufficient to begin with, is it really a viable relationship in any context?
---
### Author:  [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/96 "2010-07-12T21:18:38Z")
EDIT: replying to **kaylasdad**
Yeah, it came up from time to time.
Oddly, perhaps, it wasn’t THAT one that stuck in her craw and let to repeated arguments back & forth, but rather a related (in my opinion) issue: promising (or refusing to promise) permanence.
I always said no one can know what they are going to feel tomorrow; you can only say what you feel TODAY. That love is not safe and cannot be made safe, that it is INTRINSICALLY risky. And of course that people who promise “until death do us part” either make the promise lightly and rescind it if & when they are no longer in love or else make it with seriousness and then would stay with you out of duty when they no longer love you, perhaps do not even LIKE you.
She said her way of being in relationships is “serial monogamy” — that she can only be involved with one person at a time but that she _expects_ every relationship to expire eventually, and yet nevertheless took issue with my “you can only speak of what you feel today, you should not make promises about whether you will love tomorrow or that you will stay together forever”. It wasn’t that she wanted or expected that either of us should stay in the relationship if in fact tomorrow came and we found that we were NOT in love any longer, and I found it inconsistent and confusing.
I think this argument / lack of mutual understanding _was_ toxic in our relationship, and that for years she felt like my expression of this philosophical understanding meant that I always had one foot out the door. I always felt bad about that but I don’t feel bad about the sentiment _per se_ or the way I put it into words _per se_ (hey, _most_ people seem to understand the concept), but I sure wish we had not let so many years go by during which she was expecting me to announce I was leaving her. Which, not because of this or in spite of it for that matter, I eventually did.
If I could have unsaid that and derived the same observation perhaps from her phrase “serial monogamy”, I would have.
Well, it’s not like we had that particular discussion every evening, either, or spent 12 miserable years achng over it, it just came up every now and then when she’d bring it up at times when we were discussing our own relationship in general and so on.
Anyway, the poly thing sort of took a back seat to that one as an issue between us. When it would come up, it would segue quickly into this other concern: less “Oh I know you want to be with other women as well as me” and more “Oh you’re going to meet someone who makes your nerve endings tingle and then you’re going to leave me”. Perhaps on some occasion I did reply back “Well if I do I’ll still want to stay involved with you” but just got back a “Well that’s not gonna happen, so get over it”. And perhaps once “Well if I did, what I would want is to also stay involved with you as well, and since you’ve said I can’t have that, not losing you with whom I have a connection would probably be the more important consideration” but that didn’t go anywhere productive either.
PS: we did talk again, but reconciliation is just not happening. It’s not healthy for either of us to keep pulling the scab off it like that, so I’m putting my remaining hopes into the possibility that we can stay friends (without “benefits”).
---
### Author:  [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/97 "2010-07-12T23:10:02Z")
Good luck **AH3**. Time and hugs heal all wounds, hugs more-so than time. ::hug::
---
### Author:  [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/98 "2010-07-13T00:23:25Z")
> [@AHunter3](#):
>
> EDIT: replying to **kaylasdad**
> I always said no one can know what they are going to feel tomorrow; you can only say what you feel TODAY. That love is not safe and cannot be made safe, that it is INTRINSICALLY risky. And of course that people who promise “until death do us part” either make the promise lightly and rescind it if & when they are no longer in love or else make it with seriousness and then would stay with you out of duty when they no longer love you, perhaps do not even LIKE you.
That’s a lot of generalized “yous” for what sounds to me like your own individual problem with insecurity and power issues in a relationship. Sounds to me like you must have had a lot of unfulfilled emotional promises made to you as a child.
How was your relationship with your mother?
---
### Author:  [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/99 "2010-07-13T00:28:11Z")
Thanks, to all the people who have offered me words of emotional support & best wishes (& that includes those of you who have included some pointed advice & some things to think about).
---
### Author:  [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394/100 "2010-07-13T02:11:35Z")
> [@AHunter3](#):
>
> EDIT: replying to **kaylasdad**
> She said her way of being in relationships is “serial monogamy” — that she can only be involved with one person at a time but that she expects every relationship to expire eventually, and yet nevertheless took issue with my “you can only speak of what you feel today, you should not make promises about whether you will love tomorrow or that you will stay together forever”. It wasn’t that she wanted or expected that either of us should stay in the relationship if in fact tomorrow came and we found that we were NOT in love any longer, and I found it inconsistent and confusing.
(bolding mine)
Look, although superficially it sounds as though you guys were saying the same thing, her assertion was regarding the expiration of a relationship at some undefined point in the future. “Eventually” is inherently vague and distant. But your statement made it sound as though as if breaking up could come as soon as tomorrow. “You can only speak of what you feel today…” is not all that reassuring when you already know your partner would prefer shagging other people, to be blunt about it.
“We’re all going to die someday” sounds a lot less macabre than “We could die tomorrow”.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rip-relationship-1998-2010/545394.md?page=6)