Polyamory: Lots of sex, even more scheduling

[Trionyx]

"vee" relationships (A is sleeping with B, B is also sleeping with C, C isn't sleeping with A) are much more common than fiction might suggest.

If you were to write a story about this, as I once did, expect the LW crowd to tear it apart if the B is female and the A and C are male, even if all three are on board with the arrangement.

 

[lc69hunter]

If you were to write a story about this, as I once did, expect the LW crowd to tear it apart if the B is female and the A and C are male, even if all three are on board with the arrangement.

True

 

[Scotchlander]

I am just about certain a couple I know are in a Polyamory relationship. The single guy goes everywhere with them and also lives with them. Their grown children see it, but treat it as normal.

I would love to be involved in that type of relationship. Especially if the wife was highly sexed and open to having lots of sex.

 

[Vitriolhack]

I am just about certain a couple I know are in a Polyamory relationship. The single guy goes everywhere with them and also lives with them. Their grown children see it, but treat it as normal.

I would love to be involved in that type of relationship. Especially if the wife was highly sexed and open to having lots of sex.

Throuple relationship, why not.

If all are good to each other, then, why not? That sounds hot!

 

[8letters]

Any recommendations for Literotica stories that you think depict a polyamory relationship especially well? I'm especially curious if there are stories that depict such a relationship's origin, or a person's first-time experience with it.

I have a polyamory I/T story dropping Monday that depicts the relationship's origin.

 

[MrPixel]

I guess we've resurrected this zombie thread. On the re-read, I have a serious take on this.

We kept it more quiet when we had young kids, given one family's bad experience being reported to social services.

It's more than "young kids" that raise the hackles of the official arbiters of what's "right" and what's "wrong". Bring "adult protective services" into the picture for the over-60 crowd and you've got prudes circling overhead like a vortex of vultures.

My wife and I are open-minded about our partnering, both casual and ongoing, though none have been a live-in situation. Problem we suddenly have is she's been going through a bout of fairly deep depression having nothing to do with relationships and everything to do with the sudden onset of the infirmities of aging. Years of being spectacularly preserved for her age set her up for falling off an emotional cliff when new appearances of cellulite, wrinkles, and thinning hair catch her eye each morning as she prepares for the day, or she can no longer fit into the size 6 pants that were just fine last season (she's now an 8 - a fabulous 8, at that).

The problem came when she expressed this depression to her primary care physician. She (her doctor*) turned out to be an A-number-one intolerant prude and apparently bristled at some hint that she had a guy or guys on the side. She started to get almost daily phone calls from the doctors' group's counseling service insisting she come in for a chat, or even get pinned down for a phone interview.
* - She no longer sees that doctor, who has fortunately left the group practice. We now currently share the same PCP, who knows we are sexually active in our 70s, and is supportive.

Having been through relationship counseling myself, I knew what was up. I also had the foresight to help her screen "unknown caller" messages. So together we have refused to respond to the offers of "help" with her depression because I know damn well they've been teed-up to assess an "abusive spouse" situation, "forced sex with strange men." Hardly. The huge problem with all this is they are "mandated reporters", required to report to welfare authorities what they determine, as "professionals", to be abuse. Great way to shut the door on people genuinely in need of this kind of assistance with life issues.

I was somewhat prepared to counter the prevailing attitudes should we have assented to in-person counseling by giving the prospective counselor a copy of a serious academic textbook, Sex-Positive Social Work, requesting they be familiar with the material before talking to us. "Senior sex" and polyamory are well-presented in the text. The opportunity to educate didn't occur, and personally I hope the lack of opportunity in that vein remains the case.

Fortunately, the calls have abated, and we haven't been bothered since the spring. Unfortunately, she parted company last fall with the three gentlemen she was seeing, each for different reasons, the most disturbing one his violating the poly arrangement, expressing that he determined she was "gettable" for himself. She had to ghost him. (Sadly, I had no steady lady friends, but there was one who I would have liked to seen more of!)

Anyway, willful ignorance is everywhere, in "official capacities" designed to make one's life absolutely miserable.

 

[Silver_Arrow]

I've always felt, in the back of my mind, a thrupple or closed triangle would be something I'm interested in. I view the need to place all your life's worries, challenges, and struggles on other other person as a lot to ask. With three partners, sure there needs to be more communication, scheduling, relationship building etc, but you then can share lifes ups and downs with more than one person. Ultimately I think it can provide a wider support system for helping eachother navigate life.

The biggest pit fall I see is everyone immediately jumps on the MORE SEX bandwagon and suddenly it becomes all about threesomes and sex. There's far more to it than that, and it saddens me that many people who view it negatively just boil it down to that. On the flip side plenty of people want it because they just see MORE SEX and not the work and time you have to put into a relationship that goes 3 ways. Relationships are work.

 

[StillStunned]

Am I the only one who has enough trouble keeping one partner happy? I can't imagine what it would be like with two.

 

[MrPixel]

Am I the only one who has enough trouble keeping one partner happy? I can't imagine what it would be like with two.

I can, and I write about it in the Barstow series. Yeah, it's on LitE so it's sexually-focused fantasy, but I work my pragmatic imagination pretty hard in chronicling the daily lives of a fourple and friends, touching on the mundane like meals together, grocery shopping, and mowing the lawn.

But that's two couples. Nobody is without a partner should there be a pairing-off. Maybe like you I have a rougher time with a live-in threeple, especially when there's not a bisexual component with the third.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Am I the only one who has enough trouble keeping one partner happy? I can't imagine what it would be like with two.

Sometimes keeping one's partner happy is about giving them space. I love my partner dearly but both of us like to have some alone time where we can get our own stuff done, and when one of us is off doing stuff with another partner, that's a chance for that alone time.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The only V-shaped relationships I've known to work long-term are where at least one of the ends involved has a time-consuming hobby they're dedicated to. So it functions like a couple who both have their own hobbies, only for one of them, their hobby happens to be a person.

UK house prices certainly reduce the numbers of poly relationships who all end up living together.

 

[djrip]

The only V-shaped relationships I've known to work long-term are where at least one of the ends involved has a time-consuming hobby they're dedicated to. So it functions like a couple who both have their own hobbies, only for one of them, their hobby happens to be a person.

UK house prices certainly reduce the numbers of poly relationships who all end up living together.

Because it's too expensive to get a big enough one, or so cheap everyone just has their own?

I'd guess the first of course. But over here everyone jokes that they solve their rent shortages by becoming poly and moving more people in.

 

[djrip]

Also how they keep their DnD campaigns going from what I understand.

I've been reading this group, Sounds Like Accidental Polyamory But Okay, on FB and it's been interesting. They are so... Moralistic. And judgy. Some of the more prominent ones anyway.
And there is so much vehement disapproval for Unicorn Hunters. That's an existing couple looking for a bisexual third. There are a lot of good points about how that *can* be unethical, which i understand and agree with, like the new person can be unequal or dropped at the first sign of trouble to the existing partnership. I get it, but I feel like someone could also be respectful about it. But they seem really sure it's very nearly always terrible. Or will say things like, that can only work if the existing couple do the work of decoupling. But it seems to me like, why decouple them; why not strengthen the connections with the third until they're just as strong as the original coupling?

 

[Comshaw]

Am I the only one who has enough trouble keeping one partner happy? I can't imagine what it would be like with two.

BAWAHAHA! You have no idea.

My wife and I were in a poly relationship with another couple for 15 years. That wasn't the only one we had over the years, but the longest. We lived separately but spent a lot of time together, traveled and vacationed together. Most people focus on the sex. Which I will say was fabulous, but to keep such a relationship going that long it takes a lot more than just sex: work, lots and lots of work. Take communication in the group.

With a pair you have one line of communication back and forth between the two. But adding another pair doesn't just add one more line of communication, It adds 6 more. How did I come to that? You have lines between each of the 4 partners, which accounts for 6 lines between individuals. Then you have another for the group as a whole. As you can see just talking to each other can get complicated. If everyone was honest and forthright 100% of the time it would help, but people are people. We are flawed and as such we go off on tangents that can cause a disruption in the whole. So we had to work at it. And to be honest it taught me a lot.

Then you have 4 separate personalities to mix in. Partner A may feel slighted because they think partner B is spending too much time with partner C and partner D isn't giving A enough attention.

This type of lifestyle isn't for the jealous type, or the self-serving type. It takes acceptance, generosity of spirit and work, lots of work.

In prior discussions, I've had many prudish types tell me, "See! It only lasted 15 years! That proves it's wrong, doesn't work and shouldn't be done!" What those people fail to consider is in the U.S. of A. the average marriage lasts 7 1/2 years. So that "wrong" relationship we had lasted twice as long as the average marriage. On the same note, people condemn it and say "I've never had more than one girl (boy)friend at a time." Okay, so how many have they had? Two? Three? A dozen? More? So they are doing in series the same thing we did all at one time, huh? I call it being a series polyamorous individual. The point is, how much difference is there in sleeping with 6 different partners exclusively one at a time, or 6 partners whenever you wish to with all of them knowing it occurs?

We never let most others know about our lifestyle, not because we were ashamed of it, but because there were so many judgemental people who saw it through their own bias lens and even though it neither affected them nor touched their lives, think it right to tell us we should do what they think is right. One of my favorite quotes on this subject is:" If a believer demands that I as a non-believer observe their taboos in my life, they are not asking for my respect, but for my submission."

Just my experience with and my on it.

Comshaw

 

[Bramblethorn]

Also how they keep their DnD campaigns going from what I understand.

I've been reading this group, Sounds Like Accidental Polyamory But Okay, on FB and it's been interesting. They are so... Moralistic. And judgy. Some of the more prominent ones anyway.
And there is so much vehement disapproval for Unicorn Hunters. That's an existing couple looking for a bisexual third.

Specifically, a male-female couple looking for a bisexual woman.

There are a lot of good points about how that *can* be unethical, which i understand and agree with, like the new person can be unequal or dropped at the first sign of trouble to the existing partnership. I get it, but I feel like someone could also be respectful about it. But they seem really sure it's very nearly always terrible.

To be fair, it very often is terrible, from what I've seen.

Or will say things like, that can only work if the existing couple do the work of decoupling. But it seems to me like, why decouple them; why not strengthen the connections with the third until they're just as strong as the original coupling?

Usually because the original couple haven't left room for that to happen.

IME, good relationships usually start with some mutual discussion/negotiation about what the relationship is going to look like. People talk about whether they want to have kids or not, stay in this city or move, pursue a high-flying career or be a stay-at-home partner. Some things might be non-negotiable but overall, it's something they work out together.

With "unicorn hunter" situations, usually the original couple have had that conversation between the two of themselves before they even meet their intended third. They've figured out exactly what kind of relationship they want and they're looking for a person who fits into that position. It's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, often one that feels suspiciously like "wanted: live-in nanny/housekeeper, female, pref. 18-30, must be willing to fuck on request, no salary". Their imaginary woman doesn't have kids or any other issues of her own that are going to require a lot of consideration from the couple.

Even the "she has to be a bi woman who'll fuck both of us" part is already very specific - why does it need to be that specific configuration? There are answers to that question but they're usually not good ones. Often it comes down to "dude thinks of female-female relationships as something that exist for his titillation, so doesn't take them as seriously as he would if his girlfriend was fucking another man". That's one that doesn't often play out well.

"Here's an interesting person, let's talk to them about what kind of relationship would be possible between us" is something that can work out pretty well when everybody's prepared to offer some give and take. "Here's the exact kind of relationship we want, now let's find a woman who can fit our requirements", not so much.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Because it's too expensive to get a big enough one, or so cheap everyone just has their own?

I'd guess the first of course. But over here everyone jokes that they solve their rent shortages by becoming poly and moving more people in.

The former. The spouse and I considered moving in with my boyfriend and his family, once upon a time. Sadly, it would have required a seven-bedroom house near Oxford Circus (right in the centre of London). Which don't really exist, let alone affordable ones. None of us had a spare £15 million...

It's a lot harder to squeeze in extra housemates when bedrooms and lounges are considered 'big' if both dimensions are double digits of feet.

And there is so much vehement disapproval for Unicorn Hunters. That's an existing couple looking for a bisexual third. There are a lot of good points about how that *can* be unethical, which i understand and agree with, like the new person can be unequal or dropped at the first sign of trouble to the existing partnership. I get it, but I feel like someone could also be respectful about it. But they seem really sure it's very nearly always terrible.

As usual, @Bramblethorn has said what I was going to, only better.

Looking for a partner who meets a set of criteria, rather than meeting a person and taking it from there, rarely works well - see people's experience with online dating even when the criteria are simply 'appropriate sex, within 20 years of my age and 50 miles of my location'. Restrict yourselves to only bisexual women and who are interested in the pair of you equally? I've never seen it go well.

 

[StillStunned]

It's a lot harder to squeeze in extra housemates when bedrooms and lounges are considered 'big' if both dimensions are double digits of feet.

I can't remember who it was, but there was a British comedian who did a bit about all the Australians in London, wondering why they'd give up their beautiful country to live in a flat where you can open your front door and your fridge without getting out of the bath.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I can't remember who it was, but there was a British comedian who did a bit about all the Australians in London, wondering why they'd give up their beautiful country to live in a flat where you can open your front door and your fridge without getting out of the bath.

Heh. We do have strict regs on hygiene and safety in bathrooms (hence no plug sockets or flip switches in bathrooms), but yeah, cheap rental bedrooms with a shower cubicle in the corner aren't unknown.

If you could reach the fridge from the bath, certain family members would never get out of it...

Some is just city and walkable suburbs vs car-based suburban sprawl/rural. I may envy the size of my family's houses (mostly in the arse-ends of middle America), but I can walk to the shop and back before they're out of the driveway. The pub is just as close.

 

[StillStunned]

If you could reach the fridge from the bath, certain family members would never get out of it...

When the redhead and I first bought our house, I suggested putting a bed in the living room instead of a sofa. But we still entertained friends in those days, so she said no. I ought to bring it up again.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

When the redhead and I first bought our house, I suggested putting a bed in the living room instead of a sofa. But we still entertained friends in those days, so she said no. I ought to bring it up again.

Our lounge has two recliners and a sofabed. I'm slightly in love with the recliners (complete with USB sockets...) We don't host as many people at a time any more, so really could get rid of spare beds upstairs and gain much more space.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I can't remember who it was, but there was a British comedian who did a bit about all the Australians in London, wondering why they'd give up their beautiful country to live in a flat where you can open your front door and your fridge without getting out of the bath.

Not quite as bad as London, but big-city real estate in Australia isn't cheap. In Glebe, 3 km out of central Sydney, $710K (approx. two Australian dollars to the pound) might buy you this:

 

[MrPixel]

Not quite as bad as London, but big-city real estate in Australia isn't cheap. In Glebe, 3 km out of central Sydney, $710K (approx. two Australian dollars to the pound) might buy you this:
View attachment 2376038

I first read the abbreviated "cupboard" in the entry as "CUPID". Just as good a place as any to have him handy.

And thanks for the floor plan. I was needing a good sketch for a studio apartment off of our planned new residence, and there it is.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I first read the abbreviated "cupboard" in the entry as "CUPID".

Oh, not just me then!

 

[lilshymynx]

Usually because the original couple haven't left room for that to happen.

IME, good relationships usually start with some mutual discussion/negotiation about what the relationship is going to look like. People talk about whether they want to have kids or not, stay in this city or move, pursue a high-flying career or be a stay-at-home partner. Some things might be non-negotiable but overall, it's something they work out together.

With "unicorn hunter" situations, usually the original couple have had that conversation between the two of themselves before they even meet their intended third. They've figured out exactly what kind of relationship they want and they're looking for a person who fits into that position. It's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, often one that feels suspiciously like "wanted: live-in nanny/housekeeper, female, pref. 18-30, must be willing to fuck on request, no salary". Their imaginary woman doesn't have kids or any other issues of her own that are going to require a lot of consideration from the couple.

Even the "she has to be a bi woman who'll fuck both of us" part is already very specific - why does it need to be that specific configuration? There are answers to that question but they're usually not good ones. Often it comes down to "dude thinks of female-female relationships as something that exist for his titillation, so doesn't take them as seriously as he would if his girlfriend was fucking another man". That's one that doesn't often play out well.

"Here's an interesting person, let's talk to them about what kind of relationship would be possible between us" is something that can work out pretty well when everybody's prepared to offer some give and take. "Here's the exact kind of relationship we want, now let's find a woman who can fit our requirements", not so much.

So much this.

When I was in that space I had so many of those couples approach me. I had some not-great encounters during the time it took me to learn to pick up on the cues during our initial conversations and figure out what kind of couple I was dealing with. The ones that were truly open to discussion were the real gems and even if we didn't click or have the same wants I always came away from those encounters with a positive feeling.

 

[djrip]

So much this.

When I was in that space I had so many of those couples approach me. I had some not-great encounters during the time it took me to learn to pick up on the cues during our initial conversations and figure out what kind of couple I was dealing with. The ones that were truly open to discussion were the real gems and even if we didn't click or have the same wants I always came away from those encounters with a positive feeling.

I'm glad to hear the ones open to discussion existed! I always figured they could. The FB group I mentioned just doesn't seem to accept that possibility. For the most part. One post did come up where a bisexual woman who had been living with a couple was all like, I've been in this arrangement and we all love it but now I'm seeing it's unethical and I'm really worried I'm doing something bad. On that one post only, people came out to say positive things like if it works for all it's fine. That poor poster nearly allowed the group think to lead them to second guess and harm their own successful relationship.

I agree about the problems that have been pointed out about the wrong way of doing things. And I understand people are wary of situations like that because they have run into them in practice. But if a triad relationship is going to exist at all, unless the three people meet at the same time and all fall in love at first sight, it's likely to start as a couple and then add a third. As long as the people involved are respectful and treat each other as equal partners it should be possible.

I agree that relationships should grow from the people, and it's less likely to work for a couple to look for something too specific. That's how monogamous relationships are too. But it still makes sense to know what you hope to find. Maybe that V closes into a triangle as the individuals grow together, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it does for awhile and then that doesn't work out. But it makes perfect sense to me to want it to, to hope it does, to express and discuss those hopes and desires, and to be happy if that happens.

The lack of allowance for that in the group is what bothered me a little. Well not bothered, really; what made me think, maybe I'm not exactly on the same page with these people. I don't practice poly, I just have lots of ideas about how I might like it to be. So I'm not experienced with it or anything. And may never be; it's not that important. But the way I'd like it to be if it were a thing is, a group of 3 or 4 or however many people who are all very close friends living together and comfortable in every orientation compatible sexual arrangement. Raising kids together, retiring together, buying land and building a home, whatever. Real, long connection. Which may not be realistic; like I said, if it never happens, no big deal. But I hardly think I'm the only one who thinks this sounds good.

So I was struck by the way the group, to me, feels like they envision things more like, every poly person is an atom, bumping into and joining up with other atoms into molecules, then breaking off to form other molecules. Every suggestion to every issue is 'I'd deescalate with them ' or 'exercise your boundaries are move on from that entanglement '. Whereas I like the idea of forming a molecule with strong covalent bonds that doesn't break apart. I mean of course it might have to break apart at some point but if it's well established with shared kids and everything it should be about as big a deal as divorce.

So about a couple 'decoupling' to make room for a third... It's semantics. If that just means, stop having a united front against the third, and treat them like an equal, yes I agree. But if it means weaken the relationship between the couple to the point that them breaking up is no big deal because each individual is such a free agent, bouncing around with no long term commitments in a relationship plasma, well that doesn't appeal to me so much. I'd rather strengthen all connections to be as strong as marriage, over time of course, than weaken all connections to be as tenuous as dating.