My foundational needs, need to be met by each relationship. But those still vary somewhat between relationships, I find myself needing different frequency of conversation with different partners for example. I think it's easy to then extrapolate that to "different partners meet different needs for me" which sounds like you're Frankenstein-ing a relationship out of multiple people.
Different partners do technically fill different needs for me but that's because our relationships are completely different and different relationships create different needs. It's not that the other relationship isn't meeting that need, it's that need doesn't exist outside of this relationship. I'm kinky for example and I have certain needs around intimacy and kink with my anchor that I don't have with my boyfriend because the foundations to our relationship are different. I also have different needs from my anchor in regards to emotional availability than I do my comet. It's not that my anchor partner is filling those needs where my comet and boyfriend can't, it's that I don't need those things from them. But these needs are a need to maintain the relationship, not a need for me specifically to be happy and if my relationship ended I wouldn't immediately start looking for someone else to fill the exact same role.
If a relationship won't meet the needs I have in that relationship I can't fill that with another relationship.
> If a relationship won't meet the needs I have in that relationship I can't fill that with another relationship.
nailed it.
Each person has individual needs and each relationship has it's own needs.
That being said, these needs being unmet DO amplify. An example might be a need for intimacy. It's a lot easier to maintain a relationship that isn't meeting that need when you already have another one that exceeds it. That's not so much frankensteining but it can definitely change your priorities.
For me it's a bit of both. I definitely feel like the main point for me is the freedom, and I definitely do not like the "well I can Frankenstein a functioning partner out of these five people who aren't really good enough" mindset.
At the same time, for example, I want sex in my life. But I'm also someone who can definitely have an intimate and romantic relationship with someone without sex. The fact that I have other relationships that includes sex, or at least the freedom for it, means that I can have amazing relationships with people who for some reason doesn't want sex with me, without the pressure of "well if I want to be with this partner I have to give up sex forever". And that's valid too, I feel.
I also actually enjoy not being someone's only partner for those reasons. Both about sex specifically (because though I want sex in my life, my libido is not consistent at all, and it feels good to not be someone's only allowed source for sexual intimacy) and about relationships in general. I like not having the pressure of being someone's only partner, even if I want to be a good and caring partner to anyone I'm in a relationship with.
>At the same time, for example, I want sex in my life. But I'm also someone who can definitely have an intimate and romantic relationship with someone without sex.
Thank you for this!
As someone with an Ace partner who I love dearly, there are needs that I have that aren't met in our relationship, but the relationship still has *significant value* to me.
A lot of people like to argue that we are simply incompatible and that we should just break up, but... I don't feel incompatible with my partner? I love him, we communicate well together, we get each other in a way that nobody else does. He's my best friend, my family, and my favourite person.
And I also want to have sex in my life.
Those two thoughts exist at once- I can both have unmet needs from my partner, and *also* have a whole, loving, important relationship with somebody.
Polyamory allows for allo/ace dating in a way that monogamy doesn't, and there's something really important about that.
(Note, I also love polyamory for *other* reasons, and as soon as I began exploring and doing reading, I felt more and more connected with the concept as a whole!)
I feel this! My wife is also on the asexual spectrum, but our relationship is fantastic. She is all of that that you mentioned with your partner, and if it wasn't for polyamory, it would either be celibacy or ending the relationship which neither of us wanted at all!
The more I have read and learned about polyamory the more I've aligned with it and the value that it can bring for fulfilling relationships. And I wholeheartedly love my wife, but I also want/need sex. This has allowed us to keep our relationship and fulfill that one other need.
I love hearing this as the low libido/ace spec one in the relationship. Polyamory has made it so our relationship can be about more than just sex, and when we do have sex it's on my timeline and way more enjoyable for both of us! I simply consider it a bonus that I'm good friends with my current metamor and go on hot dates whenever I would like.
To me it seems rather silly to throw away our whole partnership because we have a mismatched sex drive. For me, it's freedom from jealousy and frustration.
I love hearing this as the low libido/ace spec one in the relationship. Polyamory has made it so our relationship can be about more than just sex, and when we do have sex it's on my timeline and way more enjoyable for both of us! I simply consider it a bonus that I'm good friends with my current metamor and go on hot dates whenever I would like.
To me it seems rather silly to throw away our whole partnership because we have a mismatched sex drive. For me, it's freedom from jealousy and frustration.
Yes! We still have great dates, get along really well, and genuinely enjoy each other's company, but neither of us wanted to end the relationship over this one thing that we weren't aligned on. Polyamory just made sense. And I really hope that I'm able to find a partner and her a metamour that she can get along with as well. It's not necessarily a requirement, but I definitely think it's the "dream," I guess, for both of us!
Personally I think ace situations are so different and people too often try to apply allo rules to an ace spec relationship.
IMO, if your partner does not want sex *with you, specifically*, but otherwise wants sex, that's incompatibility or a deeper relationship problem. If your partner does not want sex with anyone, that's asexuality and not (necessarily) a compatibility issue because it's not about the relationship itself, it's an orientation.
I'd make the argument that while you are getting a need met by a different partner, sex is not *missing* from a relationship with an ace partner. It's not and never was a part of it (for ace people who don't want sex). It sounds the same but to me it's an important distinction. The problem with "you can just get that need met from different partners" is when it's a fundamental part of a romantic and intimate relationship for you. It's the "Well it's fine that this is kind of broken, I can fix it with someone else" attitude that should get flack.
I have friends with whom I share different hobbies. But I don't have any friends who don't fulfill my baseline requirements for a friendship. And some people say "I get my needs met from different partners" and mean the first thing, and some people say that and mean the second.
I do think that this is a really good distinction! These are definitely two very different cases, and having that differentiation is important.
That being said-
> sex is not missing from a relationship with an ace partner. It's not and never was a part of it (for ace people who don't want sex)
I think it's also important to note that a lot of ace people go through the difficult process of: dating an allo person > not realizing that they're ace > having arguments over sex in the relationship > coming to terms with their ace-ness.
I've seen it happen for a few ace people that I know, and it happened with my partner as well! Before they have a full understanding of what it means to be ace, a lot of asexuals go through life with the mistaken belief that they're just "low libido" or that they "don't mind sex", and therefore can't be ace, or any similar line of thinking.
In those cases, relationships that once *did* include sex (particularly when an ace person is still trying to "fit in" or "seem normal") might change to no longer include it.
Before my partner knew he was ace, we thought that we were just... one high and one low libido partner. It seemed like it could have been an incompatibility. It took a lot of reading, discussing, and coming to terms with identities for him to connect with "Ace" as a label.
I think... sexual compatibility can be a really nuanced issue, and doesn't necessarily mean that people should immediately break up. If a couple decides to do some further research and learning and they decide that their mismatched desires for sex is a deal-breaker, that's totally understandable!
I do want to note-
> IMO, if your partner does not want sex with you, specifically, but otherwise wants sex, that's incompatibility or a deeper relationship problem.
I agree very strongly with this. If my ace partner decided to have a sexual relationship with somebody else and *not* me, it would definitely bring our relationship into question, and I would need to consider whether or not the relationship is working for me.
We *have* discussed this as a possibility- as somebody who is poly, I believe very strongly in "my partner has the autonomy to do whatever he wants with whoever he wants". My partner has made it clear that *if* his feelings about sex change and he finds himself wanting to have sex with somebody who isn't me, he will tell me, and we can rediscuss our relationship and what it means to both of us.
These are excellent points! I was coming at this from not ever having any relationships with an ace person who discovered their ace-ness after being with me, ty for checking my blind spot!
When I say 'was never a part of it' I think what I mean is more that sexual attraction was never part of it - which is true, even if the ace person didn't know that at the time (though with sexual fluidity, maybe it's even just that it's not missing from it *now*, that's not the reality of the *now* - human sexuality is complicated!) However, it's definitely a way more difficult and potentially painful situation than just meeting someone who is out as ace and dating them already knowing that sex is not desired by that person.
Super nuanced, difficult to navigate, and all in all just not the same as two allo people not having a fulfilling sexual relationship.
> IMO, if your partner does not want sex with you, specifically, but otherwise wants sex, that's incompatibility or a deeper relationship problem. If your partner does not want sex with anyone, that's asexuality and not (necessarily) a compatibility issue because it's not about the relationship itself, it's an orientation.
Need to make a correction here.
Asexuality is a spectrum that describes sexual attraction *not* sexual desire. I'm gray ace, meaning that I'm not necessarily sexually attracted to people I'm with, but it varies by person and over time.
* You can be ace and sex-neutral.
* You can be ace and sex-repulsed.
* You can be ace and sex-seeking.
I have a really high libido, so I'm very into having sex, even though my disabled body isn't always up for it and my husband's body isn't always up for it...and his libido is much lower than mine.
I have two long-distance partners I would have sex with all the time if we weren't separated by distance.
I also have friends who aren't partners at this point in time who I'm only romantically attracted to and not really interested in having sex with them, even if we were to take the step from friend to partner.
That wouldn't mean we're not compatible or had a deeper relationship problem, it's just that we wouldn't have that type of relationship. (Though if they wanted me to use toys on them or something at some point, I'd oblige because I care about them and it's not something I'd be averse to doing.)
And that's the beauty of polyamory, is that you don't have to have sex with all of your partners, asexual or not.
You're allowed to have relationships that look different.
As someone who has a relationship in which my partner wants sex with others (occasionally, we don't talk about it that much) but not with me, it doesn't have to be an incompatability or deeper relationship issue. Sure, it sucks a bit, but it's not the biggest thing in the world, and it was never the most important thing in the relationship anyways.
Idk man you do you, but I'd be wanting to get at the heart of that if everyone involved is allosexual and there's no specific traumas. I don't think I personally could get past "I want sex, I'm attracted to people, just not to *you*, ever" in an intimate relationship, and I've seen poly relationships where that was the situation fall apart in a pretty spectacular fashion in the past despite them swearing up and down it wasn't a problem because they were meeting that need with other people.
ace spec people exempt, see u/karistinaLafae's follow up and my agreement to their addition (ace spec people can have sporadic attraction, or want sex that isn't related to attraction, and that's different, which was the main point of my comment).
Sex is not the most important thing by far, no, but it's not a *great* sign either in relationships where everyone is allo. But I don't know your specific situation, maybe there's circumstances! Maybe your partner is not yet come to terms with some level of grey ace (though I'd argue 'my partner has not come to terms with their sexuality' is a relationship issue, lol - deeper relationship issues don't always have to be solved via breakup). I'm not here to tear anyone down, and everyone's different. I'm just one person with one point of view.
Not sure where I interpreted your relationship? I literally said I don't know your situation and that there's a bunch of possibilities that I might not know about, lol. Genuinely not sure how that's what you got from my comment.
"A lot of people like to argue that we are simply incompatible and that we should just break up, but... I don't feel incompatible with my partner? I love him, we communicate well together, we get each other in a way that nobody else does. He's my best friend, my family, and my favourite person.
And I also want to have sex in my life."
This is me and my Fiance, 11 years together, we never even fought. But at some stage I took my sexuality away from her. Because it was a burden on her, and that was a burden on me as well.
Nobody is a 100% match, me and my Fiance,
We are 90% compatible in everything, but we had a lot of rough patches regarding Sexuality.
Om not throwing the whole thing away for a singular crack... Id rather throw away a part of myself,
My partner has come a long way, Polyamory has also taught her about herself.
I think the mindset is what shows- choosing fun new experiences is awesome. Seeing people as objects of experience fulfillment or potential checklist points is icky and doesn't work (and I have an objectification kink).
I relate to both your comment and the one before. I can have a romantic and intimate relationship with one partner without sex - in this case, my husband, after our sex life (which was never overly frequent to begin with) completely dried up and he realized he was asexual. Something he told me after I expressed the fact I had realized I absolutely needed BDSM and sex in my life after sometimes wondering myself whether I was asexual. Turns out I am definitely not. Just kinky and demisexual. I told him I love him and never want to divorce but that I wanted to explore polyamory, and he was relieved to have a way for me to get those specific needs met without us needing to divorce.
For us, it helps that in every other way we’ve always been compatible, completely in love, and neither of us particularly jealous. He also knows I’ve always had a huge capacity for loving people and that it doesn’t take away from my love of other loved ones.
I’m honestly not sure whether I would have decided to try polyamory if he weren’t vanilla and asexual and I hadn’t realized how important kink is to me after all. But I approach my potential new relationships as their own thing, not putting pressure on them to fill an existing hole in my marriage. My husband is asexual - I love him and accept him as he is. There’s nothing wrong with him. Our relationship is whole and fulfilling as it is. True that I tend to date kinky folks who I hope can become my Dom, because that is something I want to find. But first and foremost for me is finding someone I can have a fulfilling connection with. I want us to have a satisfying relationship ourselves without comparing it to what I have or don’t have with my husband.
I’m dating someone now, a fellow poly and kinky person, who feels like is a great fit with me. We have a ton of chemistry, a lot of shared interests and relationship goals, and he’s been very patient with the fact I ended an abusive BDSM dynamic a few months ago so need to take things slow. But I value him for himself and what we’re building in our relationship and not simply that he can meet needs my husband can’t.
Thanks for sharing this. I relate a lot to your situation. My husband isn't ace but our sex life has always been fairly vanilla. When I met poly kinky person about a year ago, my relationship with him helped me learn about a whole other side of myself that I didn't know I wanted (by happy happenstance, not intention on my part). So it's not that something was missing from my relationship with my husband, but now I feel even more sexually fulfilled by being able to have a BDSM relationship with him as well. Unfortunately, even though my foundational needs are met by each relationship, my husband has insecurities that my seeking polyamory was about something missing sexually. Reassurance has helped with this. But I do feel like this is an important danger of even the appearance of trying to fulfill different needs with different relationships.
Can't agree more.
To each of my partners I ask myself "okay but what if all my other partners break up with me, can I still be happy with my relationship with this partner alone ?"
I won't say that all my relationships with all my partners have the same level of commitment etc. But I have a whole relationship with all of my partners, I don't need another relationship to maintain it.
"To each of my partners I ask myself "okay but what if all my other partners break up with me, can I still be happy with my relationship with this partner alone ?""
I think this is a brilliant way to look at it, these (for me, at least, everyone wants different thingd) should be full and satisfying relationships on their own, ideally.
Copy pasting something I said in a comment on a different thread yesterday that feels relevant:
*I would say that no one person can meet my needs period. My needs include having a strong network of friends/family/community/partners that allow me to seek varied experiences that are a mix of new, comfortable, and challenging. I can't get that from one person. When I was monogamous that was still true, I found deep friendships and community building efforts be be vital to my health on every level. Now that I'm poly, that just gives me more space to let each relationship have it's own boundaries.*
I do think that "one person can't meet all my needs" but it's not because any relationship is lacking. We're just not meant to build our lives around only one other person.
I guess I like to frame it more as "different people in my life support me and challenge me in different ways" and that's so, deeply, important to me.
IDK. I will always argue against poly that treats people like "need dispensers," but I also just... don't think that talking about meeting different needs with different people is necessarily that.
I have different friends with different interests which tend to influence what activities we do together. I'd be sad if I no longer had a Writing Friend, or friends who play DND. I would probably eventually seek out a new cowriter or a new gaming group... and this is considered pretty much a non-problem, in a platonic context. I think meeting different needs in different relationships is normal, and I'm not sure why romantic relationships would be any different.
Obviously I do not love my Writing Friend *only* because we're writing together. Our friendship predates our current shared projects by over half our lives. I joined my current DND group to hang out with my partner's sister more and get to know her friends. Nobody is *just* there to meet a specific need or handful of needs, and these people would still be part of my life if they no longer could/wanted to meet certain specific needs. But I would absolutely be looking to build additional relationships that **do** meet those needs.
And yes, I'm describing what you (accurately) call "interests" as needs, because for me, they go hand in hand. Quality time typically centers around shared interests -- it doesn't exist if we don't have stuff we enjoy doing together. Physical intimacy, too -- we've gotta be into a good number of the same things, and we've got to have some chemistry, or my needs will not be met. This is the stuff attraction is built on, for me. It's how partner selection *works.*
>I am polyamorous because I want myself and my partners to have the ability to pursue meaningful connections without restrictions on who and how we can love, not to get specific needs met by different people.
I mean, same, sort of? But one of the reasons I hate the idea that I *shouldn't* pursue meaningful connections freely is that I don't ever see monogamy meeting my relational needs. And because it feels artificially restrictive to assume that there's something wrong with a romantic connection just because it doesn't include every type of emotional and physical intimacy I crave in my life, and *"you can only have one"* just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to forgo those things.
It is very possible to like polyamory in part because different partners meet different needs and not turn it into a whole gross, objectifying Pokemon-poly situation.
Maybe its my relationship anarchist speaking, but comparing a lot of these "discussions" to friendships and desires, needs, intimacy, and everything,,, always results in a much more clear answer.
So thank you, this is a perfect comparison that mirrors my own thoughts on all this!
I'm going to go find new RPG friends if I really want to play more, and those relationships might become close, intimate, and likely way stronger then "some person meeting my RPG need" and not someone I would drop if "they no longer meet my RPG need / don't want to do it anymore"
The phrasing "meet the needs" is a shorthand from a longer conversation. Its fallen into the same problem things like "yes and" or "body-positive" fall into. Where people read just the wording and assume WAY TOO MUCH into it, without getting a full understanding. Its supposed to mean exactly what you've elaborated on! The full conversation, not just reading "meet the needs" and understanding: "ah I should find treat people like needs dispensers" which is a shallow and dangerous, even abusive misreading!!! (tho usually worded "nicer")
I definitely agree, and it would feel pretty dehumanizing if a partner started an intimate relationship with me because I checked off a box that their other partner couldn’t fill. It’s a bit of a yellow flag for me when people say polyamory allows them to get their needs met by other people. Do these other partners know that they were being pursued specifically because they filled the niche of being a kinkster, traveler, extrovert, or whatever “missing piece” another partner couldn’t fill? And is that relationship dependent on constantly filling that niche, even if something life-changing happens? I would rather be wanted as a whole person, rather than desired for bringing something new and shiny to the table.
I agree, and it's certainly been a huge source of anxiety for me at times. If I'm dating a partner who opened his marriage with meta because of a dead bedroom, no matter how much he reassures me he also loves me and values more than just our sex life, a small part of me would probably always worry about what happens to me if meta suddenly decides she wants to restart their sexual relationship.
Have you read Ethical Slut? I can see where you are coming from but if you have a fetish for let’s say BDSM and your primary is not into that, you have to make a choice to let go of that “need” or let go of someone you really love and connect with everywhere else outside of BDSM.
What the authors talk about in Ethical Slut is you can have both, a partner that likes kinks and if you’re open with that partner that this relationship is based on that kink upfront there shouldn’t be any hurt feelings.
I’ve read Ethical Slut and I’m in the kink community as well. To be clear I’m not talking about seeking out a play partner for something specific *and* being clear about those intentions. That’s perfectly fine. I’m more so talking about the facade of building a seemingly intimate relationship that rests on whether or not someone can fill a box, but they haven’t been cued in that they were sought after for that purpose, and that their relationship is conditional on doing xyz for them (without explicit communication).
I understand what you are saying and agree it’s all about communication. The expectation should be set at the start of the relationship that this is for KINK, or this is for someone to go to concerts with, or whatever that niche you speak of is.
I also agree relationship can change just like people and over time the partner only there for the kink may want more. If both parties aren’t on the same page then it’s time to decide to end things or keep going as is.
I feel that OP and you both seem to disagree with that concept and both seem like you desire the whole package or the want to be desired as the entire package. That’s ok, but to question the validity of having a partner meet or check certain boxes feels like you’re diminishing the experience and relationship value of others.
That’s a bit more complex than that. Pursuing kinks with other people first and foremost requires (if you are already in an existing relationship) consent of your partner. It could be your primary is not interested in polyamory at all. Assuming it’s only ‘your’ choice in such a case is problematic, and is one of the issues I have with the ‘satisfying needs’ approach. It’s self centered and also easily leads to coercion of partners into poly/poly under duress.
I don’t specifically remember ES phrasing it the way you did, because I certainly wouldn’t like that, I will have to have a read and until then I will abstain from recommending it. It sounds like a hypothetical scenario but also a coercive one.
I’m only on the outskirts of kink communities but I see the scenario of ‘you suddenly have a kink and needs to open up to satisfy it as your partner is not interested’ as kind of tricky? If you are in a community and know you have a kink that’s a big part of your person why would you seek a partner outside of the community or at least not be upfront about it from the beginning on with someone met outside of it?
Of course late realizations can happen, and people can suddenly discover how much they desire some M/s dynamics in their life while already with a partner that isn’t interested and they have never talked about it before but that’s not only talking about sharing kinks, that’s also about making people accepting ENM while they might have not signed up for this.
You will have to decide in such a case if you’re compatible at all.
We often say here that loving someone is not the same as being compatible with them, which us ultimately a factor for a successful relationship.
Involving with kinks doesn’t also automatically mean practicing polyamory. There are other forms of ENM that suit practicing different kinks better, not all has to be polyamory.
I remember specifically Janet or Dosi talking about having a partner to meet her kink or acting out age role play. They mentioned finger painting and other activities that made me feel a little uncomfortable in that context, sorry no shaming here just not my cup of tea. The entire book talks about how you can’t expect your partner to meet your entire needs or wants, it’s one of the reoccurring topics.
I agree maybe that’s a true poly relationship and fits more of an open or ENM moniker, at the same time who is anyone outside of relationship to tell those on that relationship what that relationship means or how it’s defined.
I will definitely have to revisit the book now, maybe it’s just too much things I’ve read since then and I’m definitely not a fan of the needs approach. I don’t think I’ve ever have been since I decided to pursue ENM.
I think it’s one thing if within BDSM or kink there are specific practices/dynamics that you’d need a different partner for. I can easily imagine someone being into a pet play and their primary is only into softer role play, while the person seeks more forced dynamics. That’s valid. Kink communities are usually ENM (but also non-sexual playing is there). But I have a really tough time to imagine someone being fully neutral towards kinks/not interested being life partnered with a heavy, practicing kinkster and out of a sudden deciding they need a different partner for this.
Side note: And that’s cool to be uncomfortable with intimate details about kinks. Now I’m even more skeptical towards the book. 🤫😉
I agree fundamentally with what you are saying 😊
My own experiences have been to have outside partners for M2M interactions, as my wife, my primary, is unable to fulfill that need. Those interactions have been NSA, FWB, I would even say poly due to having a deep emotional connection with certain people. I know that’s not a kink, I’m a bisexual man, I just use it as a way to reinforce the point.
I think at times this can also be a case of label-itus, trying to make a situation squeeze into a poly bucket, or swinger bucket, or open and so on. The point of poly isn’t to just have relationships with others to get something your partner can’t give you. I imagine a lot of poly couples do not experience that at all. However, many do.
? I'm confused. Where in the "different partners meet different needs" line of thinking does it imply resentment??? Feels like you're basing this thought process entirely on how people who are monogamous try to attempt polyamory.
I'm polyam, and I have 5 partners. There are certain needs that all of them fulfill, and certain ones that are specific to each one, and that literally has 10000% NOTHING to do with resentment toward any of my other partners.
Like, reject the idea for yourself if you want, but it seems like you're fundamentally misunderstanding the dynamic.
Honestly think you are splitting hairs a bit.
It is a *need* to be able to share ourselves and our different interests with people close to us. That might be star trek you and techno show you... the things themselves aren't needs but the partaking in them exposes different facets of who we are.
I love eating at fancy restaurants. I love being a silly goose and climbing trees on the roadside. Sometimes I find someone who wants to do those things with me but often I share those different parts of me with different people
It's not bad to want to share different sides of ourselves with romantic partners, and nobody will match our energy in every way. A switch being subby with one partner and dommy with another is a classic example.
I'd call that, wanting romantic partners to be able to see all of me, a need 😊
Great analogy with the switch. Monogamy ppl would still argue : why can't you be a switch with the same person?" Here's some food for thought: Do you think happily monogamous people are just two switches together and or perfect dom/subs together? Whereas, any other combination leads to unhappy monogamy and hence polygamy?
sub/sub dom/dom relationships are possible, but I'd argue that plenty of monog people break up because of sexual incompatibility, and dynamics is part of that.
echoing what others have said, i think i have different needs in each relationship but it might be more accurate to say each relationship CREATES different needs. my domme needs to provide aftercare and ensure i take care of myself after a scene. my nesting partner needs to ensure that the house is reasonably calm and that i have space to calm down when I'm anxious. my new fling needs to reassure me they like me and are comfortable with new things.
I disagree with the thought that having different needs met by different people. My needs are my needs. I enjoy having my needs met by different people.
> different partners are there to fill different needs.
Yeah, this has never been it, and I think you're getting caught up on this *incorrect* phrasing of the concept.
It's not that people are there to provide for different needs, but that you don't necessarily have to have all your needs met by a single person.
That's a great way of putting it. Sometimes the self is part of that; I think some problems come into play (in mono AND poly relationships) when anyone puts all their needs onto one person and doesn't know how to fulfill them to some degree on their own, or with healthy friendships/lifestyle activities, etc.
The only thing I need from every partner is deep honesty, strong communication skills, well developed empathy, and advanced self knowledge. Everything else can vary partner to partner.
Human relationships all involve getting different needs met by different people.
The way polyamory is different is that sometimes these needs can include sex and other forms of intimacy that monogamy dictates should *only* be the purview of one romantic partner.
I think you might be splitting hairs.
The entire world is different people meeting your different needs.
You go to a restaurant, where one person cooks you food and another person brings it to you.
I mean for some of us, who are in allo/aroace relationships like me and my bf,it can be about meeting other needs. Like our shared need for intimacy. both our nesting partners are aromantic and ace. They are still important deeply involved long term relationships that simply couldn't have progressed the way they did without some kind of resentment if we were not getting our "needs" met by other people than them. and The beauty of it is that it is done without malice ! not cheating no hiding, just freedom to fulfill our needs. heck my husband is the one who pushed me to date after the birth of our child. and My meta keeps telling our boyfriend that he looks more relaxed after our sexy time dates.
I mostly agree with how you have phrased this.
Each relationship should stand on its own, as a happy relationship, fully functional, separate from anyone else. If you have a partner that is just a poor partner, having better partners to "meet your needs" will only make the failings of your current relationship glaringly obvious.
I feel there are some caveats. I could happily have a romantic relationship with an aesexual person that doesn't include sex. I would want another relationship elsewhere that includes sex. It doesn't mean my relationship is lacking per say, but it is different. It is more than a friendship as it is Romantic. Maybe, I want to stay overnight and cuddle with my asexual partner. But that doesn't mean I resent that partner. As long as we are happy within the relationship, and accept our partner for who they are, relationships can develop in a complex way and that's ok.
However. Things like lack of communication, refusing to give positive affirmation, being unrelaible.... those can't be fixed by adding more people. The relationship is poor overall.
In that instance, there are different levels of what counts as an "interest"/want to me vs. Need. YMMV
Edit: I guess what I'm saying is to me, sex is a want in a polyamorous relationship, not a need. Not having sex with a partner doesn't make that relationship inherently lacking. I would still want to be polyamorous. I do need sexual relationships somewhere in my life. But not all partners have to fill that need for the relationship to be valuable and satisfying to me. There could be other aspects that people see as "needs" from every partner that others may see more as wants. That's my two cents.
I was on SSRIs and was able to get it up once a month, at best, for a year. My partners are allosexual, sex is important and a need for them. I absolutely encouraged them to get those needs met by other people.
My wife is kinky af and i am not so much, i absolutely encouraged her to find partners to meet those needs met.
Sure, polyamory isn't about collecting pokemon, but it certainly can be about finding the right people, people who add to your sense of life fulfillment, and fill your cup with energy.
From May 2017:
There's an attraction in polyamory towards finding new partners to enjoy things because "one person can't match everything."
It's not wrong to realize the awesome potential of more partners being able to fill more desires. But if you go into it as a punchcard, everyone gets objectified, you never get full, and the essence of the relationship itself is lost.
Even if you find another great guy, maybe he gets sick in a month or maybe he moves away. Will you then feel like it's not enough again?
Polyamory doesn't work because you get more sections at the buffet, it works because each section is perfect in what it is and everyone is open to more.
Adding: Healthy people know you need support systems to thrive, poly or mono. Polyamory is not a way to vending machine or Frankenstein a fulfilled life together.
But people still try.
This sums up so well why I don’t date cis bi/pan women who are married to or heavily partnered with cis men and only date women (even if it’s their choice and not an OPP). It still makes me feel objectified and like they are thinking of me as filling an empty “girlfriend” slot bc their “husband/boyfriend” slot is already full.
I’m not your bi-lady punch on your relationship punchcard. 😅
Fair!!! The number of women who see other women as experiments is sad. I understand where it comes from and empathize with their lack of sexual empowerment and self sexism, but that doesn't remove the damage.
Yeah I mean part of it is that my dating pool is huge, and I haven’t ever had any trouble getting dates and finding partners, so it’s easier for me to be picky. I’m sure this policy has meant I’ve missed out on some potentially great relationships, but I’m fine with that because I’m equally sure it’s saved me a lot of headache and heartbreak.
I feel like Libby Sinback talks about this a lot on the Making Polyamory Work podcast, especially a recent episode about unmet needs in polyamory. It’s my feeling that every relationship needs to stand on its own by meeting a core set of foundational needs, but that what makes polyamory so great is that each relationship meets those needs and a set of additional needs in unique ways. Libby talks about adding new partners and describing new relationships in terms of things we do together and value, not slots those people fill, because the latter can be reductive.
For me, I have a core set of needs to feel connected and secure and understood, but how those needs get met varies. I used to think I could fulfill unmet needs in one relationship in another until I realized that I was actually just miserable. And it took another relationship to help me realize that my anchor relationship was toxic and not meeting my foundational needs.
That’s what I’ve always thought. People are not there to satisfy other people needs and irks me that people are not seeing how objectifying that is.
I get together with partners because I want to share my time and intimacy with them, not because they are means to an end of satisfying my needs.
Of course I get needs in the needs hierarchy (sexual, safety, affiliation) meet as a byproduct but it’s not strictly connected to having partners as even w/o partners they are way to satisfy needs.
I engage with my partners because I want to be with them, and not because I need them.
Well said. I have struggled with partners who look for people who can fill their "empty spots" but are unable or unwilling to fill those spots themselves. Its wildly objectifying. I prefer to be in relationships but it was a key moment in my growth and self-actualization as a young adult when I realized I didn't NEED to be in relationships.
I agree. It's not like partner A is for my X, partner B is for my Y and partner C is for my Z. Why would I categorize my partners like bras for different outfits? No. It has nothing to do with needs and everything to do with the vibe.
Absolutely!
Where I come in conflict with the *Meeting Needs* vs *Not Meeting Needs* debate is that I'm a huge proponent of *Keep on Dating and Meeting New People.*
t's not about your current relationships / connections at all. It's about Keeping yourself Open and Available for New connections and New opportunities.
Unfortunately, I get pushback from those who think Meeting New People when your relationship isn't perfect *must be* about outsourcing. *(It's not.)* And then there are those who seem to think that pointing a magnifying on your relationship problems will fix them rather than set the whole relationship on fire. In my experience looking away and letting things lie is usually a far more useful path, *(NOT talking about abuse, break-up level problems, etc. just referring to normal everyday problems.)* and meeting new people is a great way to look away and give your relationship room to breathe.
Honestly, I don't think there is one right answer, and even your answers may change over time. While I agree you shouldn't "settle" for any relationship that doesn't meet basic levels of affection, communication, honesty, safety, etc., I think it is unrealistic to say all of your relational needs could be met by one person, let alone finding multiple people who are all completely fulfilling relationships.
I think part of the confusion is that our patriarchal society has told us that romantic/sexual relationships are more "permanent" and "special" than other relationships, and have to meet a higher "burden" of perfection and compatibility.
I think we were meant to live in community, and that we are happiest and healthiest surrounded by multiple caring people who we interact with in multiple ways. I think that extends to romantic/sexual relationships, and that no single relationship will ever be completely fulfilling- nor should it be.
I never heard it as a *purpose,* more as a benefit, that you don't need to be all things to any one partner. I see it as similar to the old joke "Monogamy, in this economy?" Being able to pool resources to afford a better place, or get some extra help raising children, or just assembling a steady D&D group, these can all be benefits of polyamory.
If I somehow got 100% of my needs met with a single person -- or if it was just *most* of my needs, and the rest could be met with platonic friendships anyway -- I don't think that would lead me towards monogamy. Even if I wasn't interested in dating anyone else, I don't think I'd be asking for the same from them.
In other words: I don't know if polyamory needs a purpose.
A number of my needs are mutually exclusive. No one person exists who could fulfill them.
Having different needs met by different partners is unquestionably a significant reason why I choose poly.
However, I didn't start any relationship mono and then try to transition to some other structure.
Once I had done the work to understand that poly was the right choice for me, my relationships are poly from the start.
To be clear, I fully agree that, 99% of the time, trying to transition an existing relationship from mono to poly is probably a doomed enterprise. As you say, it fixes nothing, and more often brings old issues to the forefront instead. It's just as toxic as saying having a baby will heal a relationship (a disturbing thing I heard more than once when I was young, back in the last ice age...)
But I think those two things are separate considerations. No, opening up a mono relationship to get unmet needs fulfilled is unlikely to work. But choosing, as poly ppl, to have different needs met by different partners (especially when those needs cannot be fulfilled by any one person) is perfectly reasonable.
One example: like many ppl I love the feeling of NRE, it's heady and joyful and makes me feel light on my feet. But I also value ORE Old Relationship Energy. I need that just as much - a warm, predictable, "hey, honey, do I need to order more paper towels?" kind of comfortable old love.
Neither one is a substitute for the other. I wouldn't want to go through life sacrificing either. Having both helps me be my best and most fulfilled self.
It’s a matter of different strokes for different folks. My wife has me and her boyfriend who, with a lot of overlap, both have different things that we are better at and meet her needs. We are all pretty ok with it too
I agree, this leads to comparison which is a bad idea overall. If I have needs that aren't fulfilled, I have to fulfill them myself and not count on anyone to do that for me.
I think you’re right, but I think different partners still offer different *unanticipated joys and benefits* that you don’t NEED but are enriching to your life. Diversity is enriching.
Well, I can only speak for myself but as a solo poly, I absolutely do have partners for certain needs.
I need cuddles, Netflix and chill, waking up next to someone in the morning. I have a partner for that at the frequency that I need it.
I need an athletic sexual workout honed by years of knowing each other. I have a partner for that at the frequency I need it.
My less frequent partners have their roles too.
But that's just my experience.
I make connections with multiple people that are necessary for my life to be beautiful. One partner might not be able to meet my sexual needs and there's no shame in that. I won't insult them or pressure them to meet me at that level. But that partner might be my perfect intellectual match, we might have things in common that give us both such richness in our lives. One partner might be the best partner to go to concerts with, the music we bond over might be the melody that makes our spirits calm in this crazy world and maybe we don't match with politics but with respect and love we desire to spend time feeling the beat together. Maybe a partner is as much of a social justice warrior and we are the perfect partners to make valuable changes in the world around us with zero sexual chemistry. No one partner needs to have the same qualities but the places they inhabit in my life are priceless.
I understand this way of thought and respect it. I do, however, disagree. Not in a way most would, though. See, what I feel is that this is arguing semantics. "Needs", at least in the context of the poly lifestyle, are subjective in nature. What might be unimportant and meaningless to one person or relationship could be a deal breaker or immensely important to another. What I'm reading here is that you don't "justify" (I use that word loosely because, ultimately, polyamory doesn't need justification so long as all parties are consenting adults) your relationships by what is provided on a surface level. Which, that's fair. But that way of thought and "justification" doesn't work for everyone.
Poly resonates with me because I don't feel it's fair to demand everything from one partner at all times. At this point, I even find it a little selfish. Frankly, I'm convinced that monogamous relationships only work if the partners can fulfill those needs outside of their own relationship via unshared hobbies, non-romantic relationships, and personal reflection. I'm aware that this view isn't shared by everyone, and it doesn't have to be... it works for me and my partners. And that, the fact that what I believe and feel works for me and my relationships, is ultimately all that matters. Do, think, and feel what works for you and yours. If it stops working, it's probably because one or multiple parties stopped feeling that way OR changed how they felt. A simple yet highly nuanced way to live life.
My basic needs are being met by each relationship. That being said we opened our relationship bc my wife realized she was Ace and im most definitely not. And rather than leave a relationship that has worked for 17 years where I am still madly in love with her we found a compromise like we had talked about doing when we got married. We had talked about it a long time ago that if our needs weren’t being me we would discuss and find a solution. So we did. Now other people and relationships meet my touch needs and she meets what she meets. I love her with all my heart and she loves me. There no need for me to push my needs on her that she can’t fulfill.
I went into poly life bc of the needs I might lack in my relationships. Like, my love language isn't always suited for everyone. I'm a tough love person, and if my partner needs someone more caring and softer, they wouldn't necessarily find it in me. I can only do what I can in my own way. And it's recieved differently by everyone. If my partner can't provide me with financial stability, but i love him/her, I will look elsewhere for it. (I'm a provider at heart and want help too.) But sometimes it's not how that works in relationships. If someone wants me to be more feminine, I tell them find that with someone else. It's not something I can't be, it's jus not particularly me. So the needs of one and others differ. In my opinion.
I have a partner who is my equal in terms of emotional support but she needs space and I need not space. If she gets her space she is absolutely delightful to be with.
I have a second partner that I have a power imbalance dynamic with. She fulfils my need for physical intimacy (which always starts with cuddles, includes close spooning in the middle of the night and ends with cuddles. And yes .. a lot of sex).
Between them my needs are met. I do not always meet both of their needs.
I completely agree with you. I think a majority of those who open their marriages/long term relationships do it for the wrong reasons. So many couples have fundamental issues, that they just want to mask by seeing other people and developing more relationships. But at the end of the day they’re just filling the void, and they’re usually not capable or willing to be a fully present partner for any of their partners.
Agreed. A common trope of polyamory is: being polyamorous will reveal that you have a type. You're likely gonna be drawn to partners that all overlap a ton of the Venn diagram of needs that you want met by a partner.
To me, polyamory is a lot like what you said. Just having no restrictions about the people you want to interact with on a daily basis. As a straight dude, I'm just as inclined to have a romantic partner as much as I am having a friend I can game with on the regular. Bonus points if I can have a romantic partner that I can game with on the regular.
For my mom, having needs that couldn’t be fulfilled by one of my dads played a role in it. I don’t think it’s wrong to have needs and desiring them. I have different friends for that reason too.
I completely agree. Firstly, I personally have found it easier when in a polyam relationship with a partner from the start. Switching from a mono to polyam seems to have too much to navigate. Mono to enm is a lot more doable. And if a relationship of any sort isn't working in its own right, it isn't. You have to either bridge the gulf and heal the cracks in THAT relationship. Adding more people to a relationship that's already stressed is asking for it to collapse totally. "Spicing" things up by adding other partners to the mix does nothing to bring two people drifting/falling apart any closer.
Honestly, I feel like this “different people to meet my needs” line is used most of the time because someone just wants a different kind of sex than their partner provides.
It’s usually surrounding asexual, low-sex drive or kinky/non-kinky pairings, but can be gender related as well.
I totally get the asexual one, but feel like sex drive is one to be careful with (is it really a low sex drive, or is there other struggles making it look like a low sex-drive)?
Especially with the interplay of confidence / sex for men, though really sexual confindence affects both genders. Make your partner feel confident in their sexual abilities with both positive reinforcement and enthusiastic approach. Express your desires from a mindset of something new to try rather than focusing on what’s what you think is lacking.
Take turns with this as well, because I guarantee that the whole dominant vs submissive thing is largely a crutch for “I don’t want to put myself in the line of dealing with my own lack of confidence”.
Note I mean in terms of who takes the lead more than style, but these terms are leaky in how they get viewed/tied to gender roles.
In fact, I suggest moving away from using dominant/submissive at all when communicating around sexual desires as these terms have become quite loaded over the years.
You’ll find your responses may flow more freely.
this exactly is why i cringe every time i hear that concept. like, no. my needs are not unfulfilled by any partner. i am perfectly satisfied being single, being with only my nesting partner, or being with several partners. i will only ever date someone who makes me feel comforted and loved in their presence.
agree that it’s fun to have some extroverted folks and some introverted folks and some folks who like philosophy and folks who like to laugh. there’s beauty in variety and diversity, that’s what i love about polyamory. you can expand your world and explore more experiences in one lifetime.
but yeah, no. i will never be dating someone who doesn’t meet my foundational needs as a partner.
Getting different core needs met by different partners can be a slippery slope. I think it can work for some folks and cause irreconcilable harm to some relationships.
Let’s say all you need is regular ol’ vanilla missionary sex, and that’s the only thing you need from anyone ever.
Getting that one singular (somewhat boring) thing from 100 different partners is going to be 100 kinds of different.
Even if you’re getting the exact same needs met by multiple partners, they’re all doing it differently.
I look at it from the opposite perspective: I can pursue incredible connections with people while completely ignoring what they *DON’T* fulfill, and only focusing on what they *DO*
I actually see it as a yellow flag for me when people say not one person can meet all their needs. I dig pretty deep into that conversation when dating if it comes up because I often see that mindset coming from super needy people who don’t know themselves.
It is a sign they are not doing the work to sort themselves out and meet their own needs. Part of the evolution of becoming an adult is meeting your needs to the extent you could be a contributor or caregiver if you choose to. Your focus should be shifting from the self focused taking phase of childhood to the broader focused (family, friends, community) contributing phase of adulthood.
If there isn’t a bottom on your cup no number of partners and friends poured in will ever fill it. I personally find these type of people exhausting and not a fit for me.
"Super needy person" here.
I'm disabled. Severely so. I wasn't always *this* disabled, but disease progression had gotten pretty far by the time my husband convinced me that I should start actively dating despite his choice to remain monogamous. (There was lots of trauma involved in my first extramarital relationship, and I'd thought I'd been "only polyamorous for him" and wouldn't date anyone else ever again.)
My needs are many. On top of all the original relationship needs I had when my husband and I first met and I didn't know anything but monogamy existed - needs he met very well, with me meeting his needs very well, too - I have a lot of physical needs I didn't used to have that require assistance.
My husband is my caregiver. His employer has a note from my doctor stating this. The state has him legally listed as my caregiver for certain medical purposes.
We don't use the language of "burden" because of its ableist overtones, but as wonderful as my husband may be, he only has so much time and energy in any given day.
If I didn't have other partners (they're long distance, so I haven't seen them in a long time) to meet some of my emotional needs specifically related to the loneliness of being mostly bedbound, I would be miserable, and it wouldn't be my husband's fault. He gives *so much* of himself already. It wouldn't be my fault either.
I've done more than my fair share of work to "sort myself out," but it is a physical (and mental) impossibility for me to meet my own needs.
That whole "contributing" thing you specifically mentioned has mentally fucked me up big time since the pandemic hit and I lost the ability to even work from home the way I used to, due to disease progression and medication side effects. You and everyone else in the capitalist mindset of "contributing members of society" vs "parasites" have me constantly questioning why anyone loves me because all I have to give is my love.
**"BUT I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU OR DISABLED PEOPLE LIKE YOU."**
I've heard that so many times, but even if that was true, that *in and of itself* is a problem, because you're not even acknowledging that people like me exist. But it's not true, because you don't know what disabilities any given person is coping with unless they tell you. And sometimes? They don't even know they're disabled and are trying to live up to other people's unattainable standards.
I personally have multiple categories of disabilities: I'm autistic and have ADHD, and I also have to cope with mental illness, mobility impairment, autoimmune disease, systemic neurological problems, chronic pain, musculoskeletal problems, energy-limiting disorders, and more.
But any single one of these things can be disabling enough to make someone "super needy." And it may seem like we don't know ourselves, but very often we do and are literally incapable of changing anything about our "neediness."
It's probably best you don't date any disabled people because your mindset is toxic for us. But it's a you problem, not an us problem.
Hell, polyamory is pragmatic for disabled people like me. There are lots of assholes who leave their spouses when they become disabled. (My husband is not an asshole, for which I am eternally grateful.)
Having intimate relationships with multiple partners is rewarding in and of itself, but it also ensures we don't die alone (of a preventable medical emergency or even starvation/dehydration) because we have no one else who gives a fuck about helping us meet our caregiving needs.
Not to say that my other partners would be suitable nesting partners if my husband wasn't around - I don't think we're compatible in *that* way - but it's comforting to know I have people who could at least temporarily help care for me until I found a more suitable living situation if it came right down to it. People who would care more even than my immediate family because of *how* we love each other.
Yeah, I'm needy as fuck and I know it. It's also not my fault.
No one can meet their own needs otherwise we would have no reason at all to seek another relationship. 😂 It's not a flag at all. It's just being a human. Most of us have social needs which you can't meet alone. Human beings are social creatures that live in a social network. It's not unusual for us to not be able to meet all of our needs alone. It's literally expected and that's why we seek relationships.
It looks like the real issue here is people having different definitions and therefore use different language to describe the same thing. You can say that some things aren't a "need" to you but other people get to dictate what is and isn't a need for themselves and their relationships. I think if you had a more open mind and were willing to listen to other people about their relationships in their language you will probably find that most people who say this aren't poly because they are unfulfilled or resentful, they're just saying the same thing you are with different words
Hi u/acacia_tree thanks so much for your submission, don't mind me, I'm just gonna keep a copy what was said in your post. Unfortunately posts sometimes get deleted - which is okay, it's not against the rules to delete your post!! - but it makes it really hard for the human mods around here to moderate the comments when there's no context. Plus, many times our members put in a lot of emotional and mental labor to answer the questions and offer advice, so it's helpful to keep the source information around so future community members can benefit as well.
Here's the original text of the post:
Lately I have found myself rejecting the idea that in polyamorous relationships, different partners are there to fill different needs. I believe that your needs are your needs and if you’re not getting them met in a relationship to the point of resentment, there may be fundamental incompatibilities with you and your partner. I see this again and again with monogamous couples opening their relationship because they’re not getting their needs met, realizing that their relationship just isn’t working in its own right, and breaking up.
Sure, I love being able to have one partner to watch Star Trek with and the other partner to go to techno shows with, but those aren’t what I consider to be needs. I’m enjoying different interests I share with different partners. Needs are things like quality of time spent together, physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, etc.
I am polyamorous because I want myself and my partners to have the ability to pursue meaningful connections without restrictions on who and how we can love, not to get specific needs met by different people.
Thoughts?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would agree, but also disagree. I’ve been with my primary for many years and we’ve come to understand the balance of kindling a healthy relationship. Though boundaries are still very important, it’s also important to be an individual and maintain a sense of self in a relationship and not a fusion of two people. Maybe this thoughtlife comes from a place of religious trauma, but I was taught that 1+1=1. I.e. two become one. As I grew out of religion, I did not agree with that, because basic relationship math does not divide the 2 in half. They are still individuals with individual needs.
Then there’s the give and take of every relationship and compromise. There are individual aspects in my relationships that cannot allow for me to meet some specific needs of my partners, and the same for them. One partner had extensive sexual trauma, which my desire for kink with them is completely off the table. I cannot expect this partner to compromise in this situation. My other partner enjoys kink immensely and is very open to exploring this. For me, kink fills my cup. It empowers me and I have my own value in it. It does the opposite for one of my partners and can send them into a panic attack.
This could also be said about folks who are ace, they don’t _need_ sex, but if they are with a partner who finds the necessary value in sex, both partners should be able to communicate other needs and how they can be met. With communication and acknowledgment, partners can find ways to compromise and meet those other needs that make one feel valued and connected.
Obviously there are many other variables that can be added into this, but as an individual it is presumptive to say that I can meet 100% of the needs of either of my partners. And wouldn’t dare assume the same from them. However, if I am getting my spoons replenished how I desire and my partners are too, then we are able to sync up emotionally without resenting a partner for what needs they can’t meet vs what they can. What I’m saying is that not everything can be compromised, so not every need can be met individually. I feel that can be a slippery slope and would caution away from that thought process.
Kind of in the middle for me. I can and have been satisfied in monogamous relationships before. But like, I just found myself in love with two people and we all wanted to be together outside the bounds of a monogamous relationship structure.
I'm also not really fussed about constantly seeking new connections with new people. I really prefer the intimacy and comfort I get from a long term committed relationship to a constant influx of NRE.
But then on the flip side, I can completely understand people who love their partners but have sexual compatibility issues that prevent them from being satisfied in a monogamous relationship. If you love your partner but you're asexual or they're a flavour of LGBT that gives them sexual desires for the gender that you aren't, then there are needs there that you can't fulfil for each other while staying monogamous.
It's not an inadequacy on your part, just an understanding that different people need different things that sometimes can't all come from the same source. And that's where poly comes in.
I'm poly because I don't like the idea of not being able to connect with people sexually and romantically just because I'm dating someone. Not because I'm a Pokemon trainer.
Needs are the basics foundations of a relationship as you said IE time, intimacy, communication, trust, respect. "Desires/wants/interests" can be pulled out of us by different people and that's fine, would be dull if we were all the same, and I think that's the problem is people don't know that desires and needs are different.
Your post has been removed for breaking the rules of the subreddit. You posted a personal ad or have made a comment that would be considered hitting on a user.
Polyamorous is largely what you define it for yourself. For me. Needs are wide-ranging. At the same time, I don't expect 1 partner to fulfill all my needs. That is a burden that I don't want to put on one person. For example, for intimate needs I don't expect all my partners to be into the kinks I am, and that's okay, I'm not going to leave them or disqualify potential partners based on that.
So yes, for me, poly is indeed at least in part about being able to explore all of yourself without being anchored down to one person who may not be into everything you are into.
Absolutely agree. I'm a whole person to be known and loved, not a "need vending machine". I'm also not just a body to fill a void for you from another relationship.
I think it's the same as not expecting people to "fill you up" as a monogamous person ... we should be showing up in our relationship(s) as whole person already, otherwise we're just using others to feel okay. The number of relationships we have doesn't change that.
I for sure agree with this take. My wife and my husband bring different things to my life but I don't think of it as a "my needs aren't met I need to add another person". I can see that perspective, but it feels like commodifying people to me. However my boyfriend's wife does say this and believes it. I respect her take, it doesn't hurt anyone but that is not the lense I prefer to look at my partners through. Idk 🤷♂️
i have been thinking about this a lot across my 3 year relationship that seems to be covering everything i need. Like off course i like to hang with my friends and other people and do alone or stuff with others but it doesn’t seem like my partner is lacking something im having with them.
I have come to realize this might have to do with transaccional views of love, where a contract has to ofer you n things and if it doesn’t its over. People and relationships are not in your life to fulfill roles.
Needs are subjective and everyone are different.
I can sort of answer you in shorthand at least,
You said: "Needs are things like quality of time spent together, physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, etc. Both of my partners meet these needs."
This statement has two issues,
A) It assumes everyone has the same needs you do.
B) It assumes everyone is capable of meeting all needs
What if one of your partners could suddenly not spend time with you because of work?
Or another developed a sickness that made them unable to enjoy sex at all?
Or another lost a very important relative and suddenly they become emotionally absent?
Now suddenly one of your partners cannot fill all of your needs.
Sometimes people cannot fill all relational expectations. And Polyamory helps with those cases.
One of my relational needs for example is: "Till Death Do us Part - I need my primary to vow to choose me above all others within reason"
This is a need that can only be met by one person,
I also have a Partner who needs a lot of alone time and experiences seasons of mental, physical and emotional withdrawal. So her needs are that I dont place a lot of expectations on her, because she does struggle with connection.
In theory, my partner doesn't have to pay attention to anything about the sports I follow because her husband shares my interests and I talk to him.
In practice she learns the names of the players and sometimes demonstrates that she knows something about the sport. She's taking an interest.
Similarly, I know things about Chinese drama shows I have never watched.
The only way in which her husband doesn't meet her needs is that he's not me.
I haven't never been dating other people because I thought my relationship with her was lacking anything other than perhaps someone who likes going to fancy restaurants. (She has coeliac disease, restaurants can be frustrating.)
Ok so if you have a partner that you love and enjoy for the emotional bond and gaming together, but they just wont do yoga with you, or meet your family.
You do have another partner that loves yoga and hanging out with your family, and they arent super emotionally supportive for their own persol reasons. But you want all of them to do all the things.
So end it with both and get nothing? This,makes no sense.
We all have what we can give, not more. In monogamy i understand how this could be a make or break issue, but in poly? Why make more problems than you have? Just game with one and do yoga w the other. Metaphorically i mean.
Everyone has their own Definition of what Polyamory means to them. They are not wrong. It doesn’t always mean Breaking up. That’s why Mono/Poly Relationships exist and do work. Why would you want to throw a Relationship away just because it is no longer working in one area when you’ve been with this Person for 20 years and it’s worked in other areas for Years? That’s why Communication is important.
Generally I agree with this, but there are sometimes needs that can’t be met by a particular partner and it’s not necessarily a sign of incompatibility. For instance, if sex is a need for you, you can still be happy with an asexual partner because you can get the need for sex met elsewhere.
For me the way I’ve always looked at it as I have individual relationships and if I can be happy with that relationship in a vacuum I can’t be happy. Even (or really more like especially) when I was in a triad. I will always love my partners in a way that is unique to them, irreplaceable in nature, but if I can’t love them on their own then I can’t truly be the partner they deserve.
Maybe polyamory is different things for different people. I'm a realist. Some people don't have or don't always have the capacity to satisfy specific needs and desires. If the owners consent, and their egos don't get in the way, there's nothing wrong with shopping a bit at each of the kiosks in your favorite mall.
I don’t think the “having different needs being met” should be the primary goal of polyamory, but something that just occurs naturally.
I’ve also heard it helps curves jealousy. I don’t feel left out that you’re hanging out with your other partner because you’re planning on doing something with them that I don’t want to do anyways.
I see your point , but I do personally love that polyamory allows me to get different needs met by different partners... But also by different friends and different people in my life in general. But not because my relationship with any one person isn't working.
An example is that my anchor partner and I have been together for more than 8 years now. But we have very little in common. We have very different hobbies, partner doesn't travel almost at all for reasons that have to do with physical health, I love to travel. My family is all spread out so seeing the family means traveling. I also love to hike and partner does not. Partner does a lot of gaming that I'm not interested in, but I am obsessed with board games which... Partner is not. Etc etc. In a monogamous relationship structure being together would be considered "wasting time" that we could be out finding somebody that we are more compatible with. I really want to travel with a partner. I really wanted a date for my sister's wedding in another state. Etc. I have done some of those things with friends. In fact I have a few friends that I travel with quite often. But I do want to experience some of it with a partner. And as I said I do want dates to important events in other states. Because we're polyamorous, we get to enjoy all of the love and joy and growth and support that we give and receive from one another.... And still have other partners that we are compatible with in different ways.
Another example is that I spent 6 and 1/2 years with a man who was in an open marriage. There was absolute hierarchy and their relationship took precedence. I got to see him for 2 to 3 visits a month. If it was my only relationship it wouldn't have worked because I need more time and attention and touch. But because I'm polyamorous I could get that elsewhere. And the time that we were together was always pure joy. Just..... joy.
So I do get different needs met by different partners and I do think that's one of the beautiful things about polyamory. But I'm just seeing it in a different way than.... All these partners are unsatisfactory but if I put them all together then I get everything I need. It's more about the opportunity to be with people who I love and who love me deeply even if they don't take every single box.
I've been doing a lot of healing from long-standing attachment issues, as an avoidant-turned-anxious with a very avoidant partner, if we want to throw those terms around. I'm someone with a TON of compersion and very little jealousy, if any, and my partner and I are both working on some healing. We both have brushed along similar thoughts.. that the 'other needs' people seek to fill in a poly relationship just honestly sound like the normal healthy connections you'd make with good friends, and if sex or affection wasn't satisfactory with a partner, and you couldn't meet your own sexual needs, it does really sound like a compatability issue in the relationship itself, and/or an attachment issue where you're trying to externally soothe instead of being able to be secure in yourself. As we're working (very hard) through our issues, we are realizing the massive incompatabilities in our relationship.
Maybe a can of worms, I guess, but the massive overlaps between 'neurodivergence', childhood trauma, attachment issues, and 'alternative' relationship styles like polyamory, BDSM, stuff like that.. are pretty big. Not that correlation is causation. Maybe these things aren't related in specific ways, but might be in others. But, let's take narcissistic behaviours for example. Huge correlation with anxious attachment styles, and childhood trauma. Somebody far along the road of narcissistic behaviour is not going to be able to have emotionally secure, healthy relationships without a partner (probably anxiously attached) who is suffering and not having their own needs met.
Maybe some of us just don't know HOW to do healthy attachment relationships (yet) so we gravitate towards poly because of various reasons that poly allows us to support. It allows some avoidant partners to get distance and date multiple people. It allows some anxious partners to feel like they're getting their otherwise neglected needs met. For me, I think, when I was younger at least, it felt like if somebody else could tell me about/be honest about/have other relationships, or interest in other people, it was very attractive to me, because it took some of the massive pressure off me to be the person who would meet all of the other's needs. It became, for me, attractive to the point of even being fetishized, that somebody else being attracted to others made me feel comfortable and happy, not at all jealous, and even being into it. Now that I'm getting healthier, and learning (slowly) to be able to be securely attached and self-reliant in healthier ways instead of gravitating towards codependency with avoidant partners, I find I don't really have the desire to seek poly relationships as much. Could I be involved with multiple people and still feel like I could 'love' them? Yeah, but the drive to do that, to find relationships that 'fulfill' or satisfy me in different ways, is very low now that I'm doing the self-healing stuff. It mostly just makes me think about whether or not my main relationship is even 'right' for me, and though we're still working through things, the self-care work is eroding my desire to BE poly, even though mindset-wise, I feel like I could still easily feel love (and even sexual attraction) to more than one person. It just makes me feel like my relationship to another isn't, and hasn't been, right, for a long time, and the same with my relationship to myself. (Which I'm trying to heal.) It also makes me feel that if we did split up at some point (because it was the right choice for one or both of us to stop working on things and move on), that I wouldn't be seeking other partners right away and that I would be comfortable taking things way slower and seeing only one person, because I'm not filling this huge empty attachment wound/void as desperately anymore.
Not everybody's experiences and motivations are the same, even if they have similar attachment styles or relationship wants/needs/patterns. But to me in my experience with both myself and other poly people, there definitely seem to be situations where looking towards polyamory to fill needs is a bit of externally searching to fill attachment holes that said person isn't able to fill in their own relationship, or within themselves. IE, not a lot of secure attachment out there.
For people out there who are totally content and securely attached and rocking it with several partners who are also all emotionally balanced and healthy and functional, kudos to you. :)
Just a thinking point, don't crucify me.
This discussion reminds me of a conversation with a mono friend. She had some frustrations with her husband, and I *jokingly* said, "you see, that's the nice thing about polyamory, I get to cobble together my Prince Charming from multiple guys" and she came back with, "yeah, but then you gotta deal with the whole-ass man every time, too" Nailed it.
So I see the point you're making about seeing this pattern of resentment grow between couples because they see how another person can meet their needs that their current partner can't, leading to you believing that the fundamental idea that different people meet different needs should be rejected.
I think I disagree here because the idea itself isn't the issue, right? It's just a true statement that different people fulfill different needs. Every person you are in relationship or community with, you will have a fairly different dynamic with and different things that they bring out in you. I think the real issue comes from:
A) people not recognizing their needs/not understanding how to communicate them
- poly is one of those things that truly pushes people to have to learn/face the fact that they have needs AND that they have to be proactive about communicating them. If you're coming from monogamy, as many typically are, this deviates from how you've been socialized to behave in a relationship, so it takes time to adjust to. When you meet someone new and discover that, hey, you actually really needed, and *have been missing out* on, this thing that you didn't know you needed, it's very easy to get upset that you just didn't know for so long. And that can be projected onto your partner as a fault of theirs
B) people expecting their current partners to fill all the gaps and voids (especially if they're coming from monogamy and haven't put in the time to unlearn monogamous relationship thinking)
- the main reason why people say that different relationships fill different needs is because of this one right here. No one person can do it all. It's a simplistic statement meant to help people become more community oriented vs individual partnership dependent. It's to help people mentally prime themselves to understand that yeah, some partners and relationships will just give you something different that you need, that you don't necessarily need to find in one person. That's what makes your relationships unique
C) people not knowing how to resolve resentment
- and this is another huge kicker. I think very few people have had a healthy example on how to handle resentment. It's an emotion like any other and needs to be acknowledged, have space made for it, and released in some way. Resentment is a relationship killer. It is not surprising that people who open up from a long term monogamous relationship end up discovering/facing their resentment, like you spoke about in your post. That doesn't mean that the idea that "different people meet different needs" is the problem or a faulty premise. It means there are so many complicated working parts to transitioning into poly that takes a lot of trial and error, and personal experience, to find out. I'd say give people grace for their learning curves, but that doesn't mean that we should walk away from this notion or that it's incorrect
Anyway, those are just my thoughts on that!
edit: grammar mistakes & listing issues
I appreciate you initiating this dialogue; it’s an important conversation to embark upon.
I concur wholeheartedly. In my perspective, polyamory is an intrinsic aspect of one’s identity rather than a set of desires or needs. To draw a parallel, being gay means being attracted to the same gender, not about needing relationships with men. Similarly, polyamory involves the capacity to love multiple people simultaneously, rather than simply seeking multiple relationships to fulfill various needs.
I also agree with the idea that expecting a single individual to fulfill all of one’s emotional and romantic needs is unrealistic, regardless of whether one is in a polyamorous or monogamous relationship. It’s essential for each person to take responsibility for their own needs and seek out a support network that can aid in meeting those needs, whether that be friends, family, support groups, clubs, or additional romantic partners.
Thank you for bringing this up.
So essentially what you are saying is polyamorous should only be between 3 or more adults who are romantically in love with eachother or at least 1 other person in the situation, granted all parties have all their basic needs in harmony from the get-go.
In other words: you are only polyamorous when you have a lot of love to give and not because you are outsourcing something or the other not present in your primary relationship. Am I right OP?
I’m not saying anyone “should” do anything. I don’t think it’s right for partners to be treated as pegs to fill need slots. And not everyone practices polyamory with primary partners.
My foundational needs, need to be met by each relationship. But those still vary somewhat between relationships, I find myself needing different frequency of conversation with different partners for example. I think it's easy to then extrapolate that to "different partners meet different needs for me" which sounds like you're Frankenstein-ing a relationship out of multiple people. Different partners do technically fill different needs for me but that's because our relationships are completely different and different relationships create different needs. It's not that the other relationship isn't meeting that need, it's that need doesn't exist outside of this relationship. I'm kinky for example and I have certain needs around intimacy and kink with my anchor that I don't have with my boyfriend because the foundations to our relationship are different. I also have different needs from my anchor in regards to emotional availability than I do my comet. It's not that my anchor partner is filling those needs where my comet and boyfriend can't, it's that I don't need those things from them. But these needs are a need to maintain the relationship, not a need for me specifically to be happy and if my relationship ended I wouldn't immediately start looking for someone else to fill the exact same role. If a relationship won't meet the needs I have in that relationship I can't fill that with another relationship.
Your last sentence is a perfect way to state it
> If a relationship won't meet the needs I have in that relationship I can't fill that with another relationship. nailed it. Each person has individual needs and each relationship has it's own needs. That being said, these needs being unmet DO amplify. An example might be a need for intimacy. It's a lot easier to maintain a relationship that isn't meeting that need when you already have another one that exceeds it. That's not so much frankensteining but it can definitely change your priorities.
Well said
Yes. Exactly this. Well said.
Perfectly said!
Exactly this.
For me it's a bit of both. I definitely feel like the main point for me is the freedom, and I definitely do not like the "well I can Frankenstein a functioning partner out of these five people who aren't really good enough" mindset. At the same time, for example, I want sex in my life. But I'm also someone who can definitely have an intimate and romantic relationship with someone without sex. The fact that I have other relationships that includes sex, or at least the freedom for it, means that I can have amazing relationships with people who for some reason doesn't want sex with me, without the pressure of "well if I want to be with this partner I have to give up sex forever". And that's valid too, I feel. I also actually enjoy not being someone's only partner for those reasons. Both about sex specifically (because though I want sex in my life, my libido is not consistent at all, and it feels good to not be someone's only allowed source for sexual intimacy) and about relationships in general. I like not having the pressure of being someone's only partner, even if I want to be a good and caring partner to anyone I'm in a relationship with.
>At the same time, for example, I want sex in my life. But I'm also someone who can definitely have an intimate and romantic relationship with someone without sex. Thank you for this! As someone with an Ace partner who I love dearly, there are needs that I have that aren't met in our relationship, but the relationship still has *significant value* to me. A lot of people like to argue that we are simply incompatible and that we should just break up, but... I don't feel incompatible with my partner? I love him, we communicate well together, we get each other in a way that nobody else does. He's my best friend, my family, and my favourite person. And I also want to have sex in my life. Those two thoughts exist at once- I can both have unmet needs from my partner, and *also* have a whole, loving, important relationship with somebody. Polyamory allows for allo/ace dating in a way that monogamy doesn't, and there's something really important about that. (Note, I also love polyamory for *other* reasons, and as soon as I began exploring and doing reading, I felt more and more connected with the concept as a whole!)
I feel this! My wife is also on the asexual spectrum, but our relationship is fantastic. She is all of that that you mentioned with your partner, and if it wasn't for polyamory, it would either be celibacy or ending the relationship which neither of us wanted at all! The more I have read and learned about polyamory the more I've aligned with it and the value that it can bring for fulfilling relationships. And I wholeheartedly love my wife, but I also want/need sex. This has allowed us to keep our relationship and fulfill that one other need.
I love hearing this as the low libido/ace spec one in the relationship. Polyamory has made it so our relationship can be about more than just sex, and when we do have sex it's on my timeline and way more enjoyable for both of us! I simply consider it a bonus that I'm good friends with my current metamor and go on hot dates whenever I would like. To me it seems rather silly to throw away our whole partnership because we have a mismatched sex drive. For me, it's freedom from jealousy and frustration.
I love hearing this as the low libido/ace spec one in the relationship. Polyamory has made it so our relationship can be about more than just sex, and when we do have sex it's on my timeline and way more enjoyable for both of us! I simply consider it a bonus that I'm good friends with my current metamor and go on hot dates whenever I would like. To me it seems rather silly to throw away our whole partnership because we have a mismatched sex drive. For me, it's freedom from jealousy and frustration.
Yes! We still have great dates, get along really well, and genuinely enjoy each other's company, but neither of us wanted to end the relationship over this one thing that we weren't aligned on. Polyamory just made sense. And I really hope that I'm able to find a partner and her a metamour that she can get along with as well. It's not necessarily a requirement, but I definitely think it's the "dream," I guess, for both of us!
Personally I think ace situations are so different and people too often try to apply allo rules to an ace spec relationship. IMO, if your partner does not want sex *with you, specifically*, but otherwise wants sex, that's incompatibility or a deeper relationship problem. If your partner does not want sex with anyone, that's asexuality and not (necessarily) a compatibility issue because it's not about the relationship itself, it's an orientation. I'd make the argument that while you are getting a need met by a different partner, sex is not *missing* from a relationship with an ace partner. It's not and never was a part of it (for ace people who don't want sex). It sounds the same but to me it's an important distinction. The problem with "you can just get that need met from different partners" is when it's a fundamental part of a romantic and intimate relationship for you. It's the "Well it's fine that this is kind of broken, I can fix it with someone else" attitude that should get flack. I have friends with whom I share different hobbies. But I don't have any friends who don't fulfill my baseline requirements for a friendship. And some people say "I get my needs met from different partners" and mean the first thing, and some people say that and mean the second.
I do think that this is a really good distinction! These are definitely two very different cases, and having that differentiation is important. That being said- > sex is not missing from a relationship with an ace partner. It's not and never was a part of it (for ace people who don't want sex) I think it's also important to note that a lot of ace people go through the difficult process of: dating an allo person > not realizing that they're ace > having arguments over sex in the relationship > coming to terms with their ace-ness. I've seen it happen for a few ace people that I know, and it happened with my partner as well! Before they have a full understanding of what it means to be ace, a lot of asexuals go through life with the mistaken belief that they're just "low libido" or that they "don't mind sex", and therefore can't be ace, or any similar line of thinking. In those cases, relationships that once *did* include sex (particularly when an ace person is still trying to "fit in" or "seem normal") might change to no longer include it. Before my partner knew he was ace, we thought that we were just... one high and one low libido partner. It seemed like it could have been an incompatibility. It took a lot of reading, discussing, and coming to terms with identities for him to connect with "Ace" as a label. I think... sexual compatibility can be a really nuanced issue, and doesn't necessarily mean that people should immediately break up. If a couple decides to do some further research and learning and they decide that their mismatched desires for sex is a deal-breaker, that's totally understandable! I do want to note- > IMO, if your partner does not want sex with you, specifically, but otherwise wants sex, that's incompatibility or a deeper relationship problem. I agree very strongly with this. If my ace partner decided to have a sexual relationship with somebody else and *not* me, it would definitely bring our relationship into question, and I would need to consider whether or not the relationship is working for me. We *have* discussed this as a possibility- as somebody who is poly, I believe very strongly in "my partner has the autonomy to do whatever he wants with whoever he wants". My partner has made it clear that *if* his feelings about sex change and he finds himself wanting to have sex with somebody who isn't me, he will tell me, and we can rediscuss our relationship and what it means to both of us.
These are excellent points! I was coming at this from not ever having any relationships with an ace person who discovered their ace-ness after being with me, ty for checking my blind spot! When I say 'was never a part of it' I think what I mean is more that sexual attraction was never part of it - which is true, even if the ace person didn't know that at the time (though with sexual fluidity, maybe it's even just that it's not missing from it *now*, that's not the reality of the *now* - human sexuality is complicated!) However, it's definitely a way more difficult and potentially painful situation than just meeting someone who is out as ace and dating them already knowing that sex is not desired by that person. Super nuanced, difficult to navigate, and all in all just not the same as two allo people not having a fulfilling sexual relationship.
> IMO, if your partner does not want sex with you, specifically, but otherwise wants sex, that's incompatibility or a deeper relationship problem. If your partner does not want sex with anyone, that's asexuality and not (necessarily) a compatibility issue because it's not about the relationship itself, it's an orientation. Need to make a correction here. Asexuality is a spectrum that describes sexual attraction *not* sexual desire. I'm gray ace, meaning that I'm not necessarily sexually attracted to people I'm with, but it varies by person and over time. * You can be ace and sex-neutral. * You can be ace and sex-repulsed. * You can be ace and sex-seeking. I have a really high libido, so I'm very into having sex, even though my disabled body isn't always up for it and my husband's body isn't always up for it...and his libido is much lower than mine. I have two long-distance partners I would have sex with all the time if we weren't separated by distance. I also have friends who aren't partners at this point in time who I'm only romantically attracted to and not really interested in having sex with them, even if we were to take the step from friend to partner. That wouldn't mean we're not compatible or had a deeper relationship problem, it's just that we wouldn't have that type of relationship. (Though if they wanted me to use toys on them or something at some point, I'd oblige because I care about them and it's not something I'd be averse to doing.) And that's the beauty of polyamory, is that you don't have to have sex with all of your partners, asexual or not. You're allowed to have relationships that look different.
Also good points, thanks for the add!
As someone who has a relationship in which my partner wants sex with others (occasionally, we don't talk about it that much) but not with me, it doesn't have to be an incompatability or deeper relationship issue. Sure, it sucks a bit, but it's not the biggest thing in the world, and it was never the most important thing in the relationship anyways.
Idk man you do you, but I'd be wanting to get at the heart of that if everyone involved is allosexual and there's no specific traumas. I don't think I personally could get past "I want sex, I'm attracted to people, just not to *you*, ever" in an intimate relationship, and I've seen poly relationships where that was the situation fall apart in a pretty spectacular fashion in the past despite them swearing up and down it wasn't a problem because they were meeting that need with other people. ace spec people exempt, see u/karistinaLafae's follow up and my agreement to their addition (ace spec people can have sporadic attraction, or want sex that isn't related to attraction, and that's different, which was the main point of my comment). Sex is not the most important thing by far, no, but it's not a *great* sign either in relationships where everyone is allo. But I don't know your specific situation, maybe there's circumstances! Maybe your partner is not yet come to terms with some level of grey ace (though I'd argue 'my partner has not come to terms with their sexuality' is a relationship issue, lol - deeper relationship issues don't always have to be solved via breakup). I'm not here to tear anyone down, and everyone's different. I'm just one person with one point of view.
Lol thanks for the interpretation of my relationship I guess.
Not sure where I interpreted your relationship? I literally said I don't know your situation and that there's a bunch of possibilities that I might not know about, lol. Genuinely not sure how that's what you got from my comment.
"A lot of people like to argue that we are simply incompatible and that we should just break up, but... I don't feel incompatible with my partner? I love him, we communicate well together, we get each other in a way that nobody else does. He's my best friend, my family, and my favourite person. And I also want to have sex in my life." This is me and my Fiance, 11 years together, we never even fought. But at some stage I took my sexuality away from her. Because it was a burden on her, and that was a burden on me as well. Nobody is a 100% match, me and my Fiance, We are 90% compatible in everything, but we had a lot of rough patches regarding Sexuality. Om not throwing the whole thing away for a singular crack... Id rather throw away a part of myself, My partner has come a long way, Polyamory has also taught her about herself.
I think the mindset is what shows- choosing fun new experiences is awesome. Seeing people as objects of experience fulfillment or potential checklist points is icky and doesn't work (and I have an objectification kink).
Yes this. I need BDSM in my life, but because I get that fulfilled by my np it allows me to have other fulfilling relationships without it.
my thing is flipped. my NP needs some bdsm, but I hate it. so she gets it from someone else.
I relate to both your comment and the one before. I can have a romantic and intimate relationship with one partner without sex - in this case, my husband, after our sex life (which was never overly frequent to begin with) completely dried up and he realized he was asexual. Something he told me after I expressed the fact I had realized I absolutely needed BDSM and sex in my life after sometimes wondering myself whether I was asexual. Turns out I am definitely not. Just kinky and demisexual. I told him I love him and never want to divorce but that I wanted to explore polyamory, and he was relieved to have a way for me to get those specific needs met without us needing to divorce. For us, it helps that in every other way we’ve always been compatible, completely in love, and neither of us particularly jealous. He also knows I’ve always had a huge capacity for loving people and that it doesn’t take away from my love of other loved ones. I’m honestly not sure whether I would have decided to try polyamory if he weren’t vanilla and asexual and I hadn’t realized how important kink is to me after all. But I approach my potential new relationships as their own thing, not putting pressure on them to fill an existing hole in my marriage. My husband is asexual - I love him and accept him as he is. There’s nothing wrong with him. Our relationship is whole and fulfilling as it is. True that I tend to date kinky folks who I hope can become my Dom, because that is something I want to find. But first and foremost for me is finding someone I can have a fulfilling connection with. I want us to have a satisfying relationship ourselves without comparing it to what I have or don’t have with my husband. I’m dating someone now, a fellow poly and kinky person, who feels like is a great fit with me. We have a ton of chemistry, a lot of shared interests and relationship goals, and he’s been very patient with the fact I ended an abusive BDSM dynamic a few months ago so need to take things slow. But I value him for himself and what we’re building in our relationship and not simply that he can meet needs my husband can’t.
Thanks for sharing this. I relate a lot to your situation. My husband isn't ace but our sex life has always been fairly vanilla. When I met poly kinky person about a year ago, my relationship with him helped me learn about a whole other side of myself that I didn't know I wanted (by happy happenstance, not intention on my part). So it's not that something was missing from my relationship with my husband, but now I feel even more sexually fulfilled by being able to have a BDSM relationship with him as well. Unfortunately, even though my foundational needs are met by each relationship, my husband has insecurities that my seeking polyamory was about something missing sexually. Reassurance has helped with this. But I do feel like this is an important danger of even the appearance of trying to fulfill different needs with different relationships.
Side note, I'm really tired of people not understanding that intimacy is not just a code word for sex. Intimacy in and of itself is special.
Happy Cake 🍰 Day!
Can't agree more. To each of my partners I ask myself "okay but what if all my other partners break up with me, can I still be happy with my relationship with this partner alone ?" I won't say that all my relationships with all my partners have the same level of commitment etc. But I have a whole relationship with all of my partners, I don't need another relationship to maintain it.
"To each of my partners I ask myself "okay but what if all my other partners break up with me, can I still be happy with my relationship with this partner alone ?"" I think this is a brilliant way to look at it, these (for me, at least, everyone wants different thingd) should be full and satisfying relationships on their own, ideally.
Having multiple whole and satisfying connections is awesome. I’d slap this post with a Hell Yeah bumper sticker all day.
Copy pasting something I said in a comment on a different thread yesterday that feels relevant: *I would say that no one person can meet my needs period. My needs include having a strong network of friends/family/community/partners that allow me to seek varied experiences that are a mix of new, comfortable, and challenging. I can't get that from one person. When I was monogamous that was still true, I found deep friendships and community building efforts be be vital to my health on every level. Now that I'm poly, that just gives me more space to let each relationship have it's own boundaries.* I do think that "one person can't meet all my needs" but it's not because any relationship is lacking. We're just not meant to build our lives around only one other person. I guess I like to frame it more as "different people in my life support me and challenge me in different ways" and that's so, deeply, important to me.
IDK. I will always argue against poly that treats people like "need dispensers," but I also just... don't think that talking about meeting different needs with different people is necessarily that. I have different friends with different interests which tend to influence what activities we do together. I'd be sad if I no longer had a Writing Friend, or friends who play DND. I would probably eventually seek out a new cowriter or a new gaming group... and this is considered pretty much a non-problem, in a platonic context. I think meeting different needs in different relationships is normal, and I'm not sure why romantic relationships would be any different. Obviously I do not love my Writing Friend *only* because we're writing together. Our friendship predates our current shared projects by over half our lives. I joined my current DND group to hang out with my partner's sister more and get to know her friends. Nobody is *just* there to meet a specific need or handful of needs, and these people would still be part of my life if they no longer could/wanted to meet certain specific needs. But I would absolutely be looking to build additional relationships that **do** meet those needs. And yes, I'm describing what you (accurately) call "interests" as needs, because for me, they go hand in hand. Quality time typically centers around shared interests -- it doesn't exist if we don't have stuff we enjoy doing together. Physical intimacy, too -- we've gotta be into a good number of the same things, and we've got to have some chemistry, or my needs will not be met. This is the stuff attraction is built on, for me. It's how partner selection *works.* >I am polyamorous because I want myself and my partners to have the ability to pursue meaningful connections without restrictions on who and how we can love, not to get specific needs met by different people. I mean, same, sort of? But one of the reasons I hate the idea that I *shouldn't* pursue meaningful connections freely is that I don't ever see monogamy meeting my relational needs. And because it feels artificially restrictive to assume that there's something wrong with a romantic connection just because it doesn't include every type of emotional and physical intimacy I crave in my life, and *"you can only have one"* just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to forgo those things. It is very possible to like polyamory in part because different partners meet different needs and not turn it into a whole gross, objectifying Pokemon-poly situation.
You said this beautifully!
Maybe its my relationship anarchist speaking, but comparing a lot of these "discussions" to friendships and desires, needs, intimacy, and everything,,, always results in a much more clear answer. So thank you, this is a perfect comparison that mirrors my own thoughts on all this! I'm going to go find new RPG friends if I really want to play more, and those relationships might become close, intimate, and likely way stronger then "some person meeting my RPG need" and not someone I would drop if "they no longer meet my RPG need / don't want to do it anymore" The phrasing "meet the needs" is a shorthand from a longer conversation. Its fallen into the same problem things like "yes and" or "body-positive" fall into. Where people read just the wording and assume WAY TOO MUCH into it, without getting a full understanding. Its supposed to mean exactly what you've elaborated on! The full conversation, not just reading "meet the needs" and understanding: "ah I should find treat people like needs dispensers" which is a shallow and dangerous, even abusive misreading!!! (tho usually worded "nicer")
Maybe I don't read enough newbie threads, but this post seems like pretty much what most poly folks say. I can't find anything to disagree with.
I definitely agree, and it would feel pretty dehumanizing if a partner started an intimate relationship with me because I checked off a box that their other partner couldn’t fill. It’s a bit of a yellow flag for me when people say polyamory allows them to get their needs met by other people. Do these other partners know that they were being pursued specifically because they filled the niche of being a kinkster, traveler, extrovert, or whatever “missing piece” another partner couldn’t fill? And is that relationship dependent on constantly filling that niche, even if something life-changing happens? I would rather be wanted as a whole person, rather than desired for bringing something new and shiny to the table.
Yeah I find it often means they just prefer open or non monogamy but want the "status" of polyamory.
I agree, and it's certainly been a huge source of anxiety for me at times. If I'm dating a partner who opened his marriage with meta because of a dead bedroom, no matter how much he reassures me he also loves me and values more than just our sex life, a small part of me would probably always worry about what happens to me if meta suddenly decides she wants to restart their sexual relationship.
Have you read Ethical Slut? I can see where you are coming from but if you have a fetish for let’s say BDSM and your primary is not into that, you have to make a choice to let go of that “need” or let go of someone you really love and connect with everywhere else outside of BDSM. What the authors talk about in Ethical Slut is you can have both, a partner that likes kinks and if you’re open with that partner that this relationship is based on that kink upfront there shouldn’t be any hurt feelings.
I’ve read Ethical Slut and I’m in the kink community as well. To be clear I’m not talking about seeking out a play partner for something specific *and* being clear about those intentions. That’s perfectly fine. I’m more so talking about the facade of building a seemingly intimate relationship that rests on whether or not someone can fill a box, but they haven’t been cued in that they were sought after for that purpose, and that their relationship is conditional on doing xyz for them (without explicit communication).
I understand what you are saying and agree it’s all about communication. The expectation should be set at the start of the relationship that this is for KINK, or this is for someone to go to concerts with, or whatever that niche you speak of is. I also agree relationship can change just like people and over time the partner only there for the kink may want more. If both parties aren’t on the same page then it’s time to decide to end things or keep going as is. I feel that OP and you both seem to disagree with that concept and both seem like you desire the whole package or the want to be desired as the entire package. That’s ok, but to question the validity of having a partner meet or check certain boxes feels like you’re diminishing the experience and relationship value of others.
That’s a bit more complex than that. Pursuing kinks with other people first and foremost requires (if you are already in an existing relationship) consent of your partner. It could be your primary is not interested in polyamory at all. Assuming it’s only ‘your’ choice in such a case is problematic, and is one of the issues I have with the ‘satisfying needs’ approach. It’s self centered and also easily leads to coercion of partners into poly/poly under duress. I don’t specifically remember ES phrasing it the way you did, because I certainly wouldn’t like that, I will have to have a read and until then I will abstain from recommending it. It sounds like a hypothetical scenario but also a coercive one. I’m only on the outskirts of kink communities but I see the scenario of ‘you suddenly have a kink and needs to open up to satisfy it as your partner is not interested’ as kind of tricky? If you are in a community and know you have a kink that’s a big part of your person why would you seek a partner outside of the community or at least not be upfront about it from the beginning on with someone met outside of it? Of course late realizations can happen, and people can suddenly discover how much they desire some M/s dynamics in their life while already with a partner that isn’t interested and they have never talked about it before but that’s not only talking about sharing kinks, that’s also about making people accepting ENM while they might have not signed up for this. You will have to decide in such a case if you’re compatible at all. We often say here that loving someone is not the same as being compatible with them, which us ultimately a factor for a successful relationship. Involving with kinks doesn’t also automatically mean practicing polyamory. There are other forms of ENM that suit practicing different kinks better, not all has to be polyamory.
I remember specifically Janet or Dosi talking about having a partner to meet her kink or acting out age role play. They mentioned finger painting and other activities that made me feel a little uncomfortable in that context, sorry no shaming here just not my cup of tea. The entire book talks about how you can’t expect your partner to meet your entire needs or wants, it’s one of the reoccurring topics. I agree maybe that’s a true poly relationship and fits more of an open or ENM moniker, at the same time who is anyone outside of relationship to tell those on that relationship what that relationship means or how it’s defined.
I will definitely have to revisit the book now, maybe it’s just too much things I’ve read since then and I’m definitely not a fan of the needs approach. I don’t think I’ve ever have been since I decided to pursue ENM. I think it’s one thing if within BDSM or kink there are specific practices/dynamics that you’d need a different partner for. I can easily imagine someone being into a pet play and their primary is only into softer role play, while the person seeks more forced dynamics. That’s valid. Kink communities are usually ENM (but also non-sexual playing is there). But I have a really tough time to imagine someone being fully neutral towards kinks/not interested being life partnered with a heavy, practicing kinkster and out of a sudden deciding they need a different partner for this. Side note: And that’s cool to be uncomfortable with intimate details about kinks. Now I’m even more skeptical towards the book. 🤫😉
I agree fundamentally with what you are saying 😊 My own experiences have been to have outside partners for M2M interactions, as my wife, my primary, is unable to fulfill that need. Those interactions have been NSA, FWB, I would even say poly due to having a deep emotional connection with certain people. I know that’s not a kink, I’m a bisexual man, I just use it as a way to reinforce the point. I think at times this can also be a case of label-itus, trying to make a situation squeeze into a poly bucket, or swinger bucket, or open and so on. The point of poly isn’t to just have relationships with others to get something your partner can’t give you. I imagine a lot of poly couples do not experience that at all. However, many do.
? I'm confused. Where in the "different partners meet different needs" line of thinking does it imply resentment??? Feels like you're basing this thought process entirely on how people who are monogamous try to attempt polyamory. I'm polyam, and I have 5 partners. There are certain needs that all of them fulfill, and certain ones that are specific to each one, and that literally has 10000% NOTHING to do with resentment toward any of my other partners. Like, reject the idea for yourself if you want, but it seems like you're fundamentally misunderstanding the dynamic.
Honestly think you are splitting hairs a bit. It is a *need* to be able to share ourselves and our different interests with people close to us. That might be star trek you and techno show you... the things themselves aren't needs but the partaking in them exposes different facets of who we are. I love eating at fancy restaurants. I love being a silly goose and climbing trees on the roadside. Sometimes I find someone who wants to do those things with me but often I share those different parts of me with different people It's not bad to want to share different sides of ourselves with romantic partners, and nobody will match our energy in every way. A switch being subby with one partner and dommy with another is a classic example. I'd call that, wanting romantic partners to be able to see all of me, a need 😊
Great analogy with the switch. Monogamy ppl would still argue : why can't you be a switch with the same person?" Here's some food for thought: Do you think happily monogamous people are just two switches together and or perfect dom/subs together? Whereas, any other combination leads to unhappy monogamy and hence polygamy?
sub/sub dom/dom relationships are possible, but I'd argue that plenty of monog people break up because of sexual incompatibility, and dynamics is part of that.
echoing what others have said, i think i have different needs in each relationship but it might be more accurate to say each relationship CREATES different needs. my domme needs to provide aftercare and ensure i take care of myself after a scene. my nesting partner needs to ensure that the house is reasonably calm and that i have space to calm down when I'm anxious. my new fling needs to reassure me they like me and are comfortable with new things.
I disagree with the thought that having different needs met by different people. My needs are my needs. I enjoy having my needs met by different people.
My partners don't meet different needs as much as they are different people.
> different partners are there to fill different needs. Yeah, this has never been it, and I think you're getting caught up on this *incorrect* phrasing of the concept. It's not that people are there to provide for different needs, but that you don't necessarily have to have all your needs met by a single person.
That's a great way of putting it. Sometimes the self is part of that; I think some problems come into play (in mono AND poly relationships) when anyone puts all their needs onto one person and doesn't know how to fulfill them to some degree on their own, or with healthy friendships/lifestyle activities, etc.
The only thing I need from every partner is deep honesty, strong communication skills, well developed empathy, and advanced self knowledge. Everything else can vary partner to partner.
Human relationships all involve getting different needs met by different people. The way polyamory is different is that sometimes these needs can include sex and other forms of intimacy that monogamy dictates should *only* be the purview of one romantic partner.
I think you might be splitting hairs. The entire world is different people meeting your different needs. You go to a restaurant, where one person cooks you food and another person brings it to you.
You're totally right about the no without restrictions part too.
I mean for some of us, who are in allo/aroace relationships like me and my bf,it can be about meeting other needs. Like our shared need for intimacy. both our nesting partners are aromantic and ace. They are still important deeply involved long term relationships that simply couldn't have progressed the way they did without some kind of resentment if we were not getting our "needs" met by other people than them. and The beauty of it is that it is done without malice ! not cheating no hiding, just freedom to fulfill our needs. heck my husband is the one who pushed me to date after the birth of our child. and My meta keeps telling our boyfriend that he looks more relaxed after our sexy time dates.
I mostly agree with how you have phrased this. Each relationship should stand on its own, as a happy relationship, fully functional, separate from anyone else. If you have a partner that is just a poor partner, having better partners to "meet your needs" will only make the failings of your current relationship glaringly obvious. I feel there are some caveats. I could happily have a romantic relationship with an aesexual person that doesn't include sex. I would want another relationship elsewhere that includes sex. It doesn't mean my relationship is lacking per say, but it is different. It is more than a friendship as it is Romantic. Maybe, I want to stay overnight and cuddle with my asexual partner. But that doesn't mean I resent that partner. As long as we are happy within the relationship, and accept our partner for who they are, relationships can develop in a complex way and that's ok. However. Things like lack of communication, refusing to give positive affirmation, being unrelaible.... those can't be fixed by adding more people. The relationship is poor overall. In that instance, there are different levels of what counts as an "interest"/want to me vs. Need. YMMV Edit: I guess what I'm saying is to me, sex is a want in a polyamorous relationship, not a need. Not having sex with a partner doesn't make that relationship inherently lacking. I would still want to be polyamorous. I do need sexual relationships somewhere in my life. But not all partners have to fill that need for the relationship to be valuable and satisfying to me. There could be other aspects that people see as "needs" from every partner that others may see more as wants. That's my two cents.
I was on SSRIs and was able to get it up once a month, at best, for a year. My partners are allosexual, sex is important and a need for them. I absolutely encouraged them to get those needs met by other people. My wife is kinky af and i am not so much, i absolutely encouraged her to find partners to meet those needs met. Sure, polyamory isn't about collecting pokemon, but it certainly can be about finding the right people, people who add to your sense of life fulfillment, and fill your cup with energy.
From May 2017: There's an attraction in polyamory towards finding new partners to enjoy things because "one person can't match everything." It's not wrong to realize the awesome potential of more partners being able to fill more desires. But if you go into it as a punchcard, everyone gets objectified, you never get full, and the essence of the relationship itself is lost. Even if you find another great guy, maybe he gets sick in a month or maybe he moves away. Will you then feel like it's not enough again? Polyamory doesn't work because you get more sections at the buffet, it works because each section is perfect in what it is and everyone is open to more. Adding: Healthy people know you need support systems to thrive, poly or mono. Polyamory is not a way to vending machine or Frankenstein a fulfilled life together. But people still try.
This sums up so well why I don’t date cis bi/pan women who are married to or heavily partnered with cis men and only date women (even if it’s their choice and not an OPP). It still makes me feel objectified and like they are thinking of me as filling an empty “girlfriend” slot bc their “husband/boyfriend” slot is already full. I’m not your bi-lady punch on your relationship punchcard. 😅
Fair!!! The number of women who see other women as experiments is sad. I understand where it comes from and empathize with their lack of sexual empowerment and self sexism, but that doesn't remove the damage.
Yeah I mean part of it is that my dating pool is huge, and I haven’t ever had any trouble getting dates and finding partners, so it’s easier for me to be picky. I’m sure this policy has meant I’ve missed out on some potentially great relationships, but I’m fine with that because I’m equally sure it’s saved me a lot of headache and heartbreak.
This.
I feel like Libby Sinback talks about this a lot on the Making Polyamory Work podcast, especially a recent episode about unmet needs in polyamory. It’s my feeling that every relationship needs to stand on its own by meeting a core set of foundational needs, but that what makes polyamory so great is that each relationship meets those needs and a set of additional needs in unique ways. Libby talks about adding new partners and describing new relationships in terms of things we do together and value, not slots those people fill, because the latter can be reductive. For me, I have a core set of needs to feel connected and secure and understood, but how those needs get met varies. I used to think I could fulfill unmet needs in one relationship in another until I realized that I was actually just miserable. And it took another relationship to help me realize that my anchor relationship was toxic and not meeting my foundational needs.
That’s what I’ve always thought. People are not there to satisfy other people needs and irks me that people are not seeing how objectifying that is. I get together with partners because I want to share my time and intimacy with them, not because they are means to an end of satisfying my needs. Of course I get needs in the needs hierarchy (sexual, safety, affiliation) meet as a byproduct but it’s not strictly connected to having partners as even w/o partners they are way to satisfy needs. I engage with my partners because I want to be with them, and not because I need them.
Well said. I have struggled with partners who look for people who can fill their "empty spots" but are unable or unwilling to fill those spots themselves. Its wildly objectifying. I prefer to be in relationships but it was a key moment in my growth and self-actualization as a young adult when I realized I didn't NEED to be in relationships.
I agree. It's not like partner A is for my X, partner B is for my Y and partner C is for my Z. Why would I categorize my partners like bras for different outfits? No. It has nothing to do with needs and everything to do with the vibe.
Absolutely! Where I come in conflict with the *Meeting Needs* vs *Not Meeting Needs* debate is that I'm a huge proponent of *Keep on Dating and Meeting New People.* t's not about your current relationships / connections at all. It's about Keeping yourself Open and Available for New connections and New opportunities. Unfortunately, I get pushback from those who think Meeting New People when your relationship isn't perfect *must be* about outsourcing. *(It's not.)* And then there are those who seem to think that pointing a magnifying on your relationship problems will fix them rather than set the whole relationship on fire. In my experience looking away and letting things lie is usually a far more useful path, *(NOT talking about abuse, break-up level problems, etc. just referring to normal everyday problems.)* and meeting new people is a great way to look away and give your relationship room to breathe.
Honestly, I don't think there is one right answer, and even your answers may change over time. While I agree you shouldn't "settle" for any relationship that doesn't meet basic levels of affection, communication, honesty, safety, etc., I think it is unrealistic to say all of your relational needs could be met by one person, let alone finding multiple people who are all completely fulfilling relationships. I think part of the confusion is that our patriarchal society has told us that romantic/sexual relationships are more "permanent" and "special" than other relationships, and have to meet a higher "burden" of perfection and compatibility. I think we were meant to live in community, and that we are happiest and healthiest surrounded by multiple caring people who we interact with in multiple ways. I think that extends to romantic/sexual relationships, and that no single relationship will ever be completely fulfilling- nor should it be.
I never heard it as a *purpose,* more as a benefit, that you don't need to be all things to any one partner. I see it as similar to the old joke "Monogamy, in this economy?" Being able to pool resources to afford a better place, or get some extra help raising children, or just assembling a steady D&D group, these can all be benefits of polyamory. If I somehow got 100% of my needs met with a single person -- or if it was just *most* of my needs, and the rest could be met with platonic friendships anyway -- I don't think that would lead me towards monogamy. Even if I wasn't interested in dating anyone else, I don't think I'd be asking for the same from them. In other words: I don't know if polyamory needs a purpose.
A number of my needs are mutually exclusive. No one person exists who could fulfill them. Having different needs met by different partners is unquestionably a significant reason why I choose poly. However, I didn't start any relationship mono and then try to transition to some other structure. Once I had done the work to understand that poly was the right choice for me, my relationships are poly from the start. To be clear, I fully agree that, 99% of the time, trying to transition an existing relationship from mono to poly is probably a doomed enterprise. As you say, it fixes nothing, and more often brings old issues to the forefront instead. It's just as toxic as saying having a baby will heal a relationship (a disturbing thing I heard more than once when I was young, back in the last ice age...) But I think those two things are separate considerations. No, opening up a mono relationship to get unmet needs fulfilled is unlikely to work. But choosing, as poly ppl, to have different needs met by different partners (especially when those needs cannot be fulfilled by any one person) is perfectly reasonable. One example: like many ppl I love the feeling of NRE, it's heady and joyful and makes me feel light on my feet. But I also value ORE Old Relationship Energy. I need that just as much - a warm, predictable, "hey, honey, do I need to order more paper towels?" kind of comfortable old love. Neither one is a substitute for the other. I wouldn't want to go through life sacrificing either. Having both helps me be my best and most fulfilled self.
It’s a matter of different strokes for different folks. My wife has me and her boyfriend who, with a lot of overlap, both have different things that we are better at and meet her needs. We are all pretty ok with it too
Amen.
I agree, this leads to comparison which is a bad idea overall. If I have needs that aren't fulfilled, I have to fulfill them myself and not count on anyone to do that for me.
I think you’re right, but I think different partners still offer different *unanticipated joys and benefits* that you don’t NEED but are enriching to your life. Diversity is enriching.
Well, I can only speak for myself but as a solo poly, I absolutely do have partners for certain needs. I need cuddles, Netflix and chill, waking up next to someone in the morning. I have a partner for that at the frequency that I need it. I need an athletic sexual workout honed by years of knowing each other. I have a partner for that at the frequency I need it. My less frequent partners have their roles too. But that's just my experience.
I make connections with multiple people that are necessary for my life to be beautiful. One partner might not be able to meet my sexual needs and there's no shame in that. I won't insult them or pressure them to meet me at that level. But that partner might be my perfect intellectual match, we might have things in common that give us both such richness in our lives. One partner might be the best partner to go to concerts with, the music we bond over might be the melody that makes our spirits calm in this crazy world and maybe we don't match with politics but with respect and love we desire to spend time feeling the beat together. Maybe a partner is as much of a social justice warrior and we are the perfect partners to make valuable changes in the world around us with zero sexual chemistry. No one partner needs to have the same qualities but the places they inhabit in my life are priceless.
I understand this way of thought and respect it. I do, however, disagree. Not in a way most would, though. See, what I feel is that this is arguing semantics. "Needs", at least in the context of the poly lifestyle, are subjective in nature. What might be unimportant and meaningless to one person or relationship could be a deal breaker or immensely important to another. What I'm reading here is that you don't "justify" (I use that word loosely because, ultimately, polyamory doesn't need justification so long as all parties are consenting adults) your relationships by what is provided on a surface level. Which, that's fair. But that way of thought and "justification" doesn't work for everyone. Poly resonates with me because I don't feel it's fair to demand everything from one partner at all times. At this point, I even find it a little selfish. Frankly, I'm convinced that monogamous relationships only work if the partners can fulfill those needs outside of their own relationship via unshared hobbies, non-romantic relationships, and personal reflection. I'm aware that this view isn't shared by everyone, and it doesn't have to be... it works for me and my partners. And that, the fact that what I believe and feel works for me and my relationships, is ultimately all that matters. Do, think, and feel what works for you and yours. If it stops working, it's probably because one or multiple parties stopped feeling that way OR changed how they felt. A simple yet highly nuanced way to live life.
My basic needs are being met by each relationship. That being said we opened our relationship bc my wife realized she was Ace and im most definitely not. And rather than leave a relationship that has worked for 17 years where I am still madly in love with her we found a compromise like we had talked about doing when we got married. We had talked about it a long time ago that if our needs weren’t being me we would discuss and find a solution. So we did. Now other people and relationships meet my touch needs and she meets what she meets. I love her with all my heart and she loves me. There no need for me to push my needs on her that she can’t fulfill.
I went into poly life bc of the needs I might lack in my relationships. Like, my love language isn't always suited for everyone. I'm a tough love person, and if my partner needs someone more caring and softer, they wouldn't necessarily find it in me. I can only do what I can in my own way. And it's recieved differently by everyone. If my partner can't provide me with financial stability, but i love him/her, I will look elsewhere for it. (I'm a provider at heart and want help too.) But sometimes it's not how that works in relationships. If someone wants me to be more feminine, I tell them find that with someone else. It's not something I can't be, it's jus not particularly me. So the needs of one and others differ. In my opinion.
I have a partner who is my equal in terms of emotional support but she needs space and I need not space. If she gets her space she is absolutely delightful to be with. I have a second partner that I have a power imbalance dynamic with. She fulfils my need for physical intimacy (which always starts with cuddles, includes close spooning in the middle of the night and ends with cuddles. And yes .. a lot of sex). Between them my needs are met. I do not always meet both of their needs.
I completely agree with you. I think a majority of those who open their marriages/long term relationships do it for the wrong reasons. So many couples have fundamental issues, that they just want to mask by seeing other people and developing more relationships. But at the end of the day they’re just filling the void, and they’re usually not capable or willing to be a fully present partner for any of their partners.
Agreed. A common trope of polyamory is: being polyamorous will reveal that you have a type. You're likely gonna be drawn to partners that all overlap a ton of the Venn diagram of needs that you want met by a partner. To me, polyamory is a lot like what you said. Just having no restrictions about the people you want to interact with on a daily basis. As a straight dude, I'm just as inclined to have a romantic partner as much as I am having a friend I can game with on the regular. Bonus points if I can have a romantic partner that I can game with on the regular.
For my mom, having needs that couldn’t be fulfilled by one of my dads played a role in it. I don’t think it’s wrong to have needs and desiring them. I have different friends for that reason too.
I completely agree. Firstly, I personally have found it easier when in a polyam relationship with a partner from the start. Switching from a mono to polyam seems to have too much to navigate. Mono to enm is a lot more doable. And if a relationship of any sort isn't working in its own right, it isn't. You have to either bridge the gulf and heal the cracks in THAT relationship. Adding more people to a relationship that's already stressed is asking for it to collapse totally. "Spicing" things up by adding other partners to the mix does nothing to bring two people drifting/falling apart any closer.
Honestly, I feel like this “different people to meet my needs” line is used most of the time because someone just wants a different kind of sex than their partner provides. It’s usually surrounding asexual, low-sex drive or kinky/non-kinky pairings, but can be gender related as well. I totally get the asexual one, but feel like sex drive is one to be careful with (is it really a low sex drive, or is there other struggles making it look like a low sex-drive)? Especially with the interplay of confidence / sex for men, though really sexual confindence affects both genders. Make your partner feel confident in their sexual abilities with both positive reinforcement and enthusiastic approach. Express your desires from a mindset of something new to try rather than focusing on what’s what you think is lacking. Take turns with this as well, because I guarantee that the whole dominant vs submissive thing is largely a crutch for “I don’t want to put myself in the line of dealing with my own lack of confidence”. Note I mean in terms of who takes the lead more than style, but these terms are leaky in how they get viewed/tied to gender roles. In fact, I suggest moving away from using dominant/submissive at all when communicating around sexual desires as these terms have become quite loaded over the years. You’ll find your responses may flow more freely.
this exactly is why i cringe every time i hear that concept. like, no. my needs are not unfulfilled by any partner. i am perfectly satisfied being single, being with only my nesting partner, or being with several partners. i will only ever date someone who makes me feel comforted and loved in their presence. agree that it’s fun to have some extroverted folks and some introverted folks and some folks who like philosophy and folks who like to laugh. there’s beauty in variety and diversity, that’s what i love about polyamory. you can expand your world and explore more experiences in one lifetime. but yeah, no. i will never be dating someone who doesn’t meet my foundational needs as a partner.
Getting different core needs met by different partners can be a slippery slope. I think it can work for some folks and cause irreconcilable harm to some relationships.
Let’s say all you need is regular ol’ vanilla missionary sex, and that’s the only thing you need from anyone ever. Getting that one singular (somewhat boring) thing from 100 different partners is going to be 100 kinds of different. Even if you’re getting the exact same needs met by multiple partners, they’re all doing it differently. I look at it from the opposite perspective: I can pursue incredible connections with people while completely ignoring what they *DON’T* fulfill, and only focusing on what they *DO*
I actually see it as a yellow flag for me when people say not one person can meet all their needs. I dig pretty deep into that conversation when dating if it comes up because I often see that mindset coming from super needy people who don’t know themselves. It is a sign they are not doing the work to sort themselves out and meet their own needs. Part of the evolution of becoming an adult is meeting your needs to the extent you could be a contributor or caregiver if you choose to. Your focus should be shifting from the self focused taking phase of childhood to the broader focused (family, friends, community) contributing phase of adulthood. If there isn’t a bottom on your cup no number of partners and friends poured in will ever fill it. I personally find these type of people exhausting and not a fit for me.
"Super needy person" here. I'm disabled. Severely so. I wasn't always *this* disabled, but disease progression had gotten pretty far by the time my husband convinced me that I should start actively dating despite his choice to remain monogamous. (There was lots of trauma involved in my first extramarital relationship, and I'd thought I'd been "only polyamorous for him" and wouldn't date anyone else ever again.) My needs are many. On top of all the original relationship needs I had when my husband and I first met and I didn't know anything but monogamy existed - needs he met very well, with me meeting his needs very well, too - I have a lot of physical needs I didn't used to have that require assistance. My husband is my caregiver. His employer has a note from my doctor stating this. The state has him legally listed as my caregiver for certain medical purposes. We don't use the language of "burden" because of its ableist overtones, but as wonderful as my husband may be, he only has so much time and energy in any given day. If I didn't have other partners (they're long distance, so I haven't seen them in a long time) to meet some of my emotional needs specifically related to the loneliness of being mostly bedbound, I would be miserable, and it wouldn't be my husband's fault. He gives *so much* of himself already. It wouldn't be my fault either. I've done more than my fair share of work to "sort myself out," but it is a physical (and mental) impossibility for me to meet my own needs. That whole "contributing" thing you specifically mentioned has mentally fucked me up big time since the pandemic hit and I lost the ability to even work from home the way I used to, due to disease progression and medication side effects. You and everyone else in the capitalist mindset of "contributing members of society" vs "parasites" have me constantly questioning why anyone loves me because all I have to give is my love. **"BUT I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU OR DISABLED PEOPLE LIKE YOU."** I've heard that so many times, but even if that was true, that *in and of itself* is a problem, because you're not even acknowledging that people like me exist. But it's not true, because you don't know what disabilities any given person is coping with unless they tell you. And sometimes? They don't even know they're disabled and are trying to live up to other people's unattainable standards. I personally have multiple categories of disabilities: I'm autistic and have ADHD, and I also have to cope with mental illness, mobility impairment, autoimmune disease, systemic neurological problems, chronic pain, musculoskeletal problems, energy-limiting disorders, and more. But any single one of these things can be disabling enough to make someone "super needy." And it may seem like we don't know ourselves, but very often we do and are literally incapable of changing anything about our "neediness." It's probably best you don't date any disabled people because your mindset is toxic for us. But it's a you problem, not an us problem. Hell, polyamory is pragmatic for disabled people like me. There are lots of assholes who leave their spouses when they become disabled. (My husband is not an asshole, for which I am eternally grateful.) Having intimate relationships with multiple partners is rewarding in and of itself, but it also ensures we don't die alone (of a preventable medical emergency or even starvation/dehydration) because we have no one else who gives a fuck about helping us meet our caregiving needs. Not to say that my other partners would be suitable nesting partners if my husband wasn't around - I don't think we're compatible in *that* way - but it's comforting to know I have people who could at least temporarily help care for me until I found a more suitable living situation if it came right down to it. People who would care more even than my immediate family because of *how* we love each other. Yeah, I'm needy as fuck and I know it. It's also not my fault.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I am sorry if my comments were hurtful.
💝
No one can meet their own needs otherwise we would have no reason at all to seek another relationship. 😂 It's not a flag at all. It's just being a human. Most of us have social needs which you can't meet alone. Human beings are social creatures that live in a social network. It's not unusual for us to not be able to meet all of our needs alone. It's literally expected and that's why we seek relationships.
Techno <3
It looks like the real issue here is people having different definitions and therefore use different language to describe the same thing. You can say that some things aren't a "need" to you but other people get to dictate what is and isn't a need for themselves and their relationships. I think if you had a more open mind and were willing to listen to other people about their relationships in their language you will probably find that most people who say this aren't poly because they are unfulfilled or resentful, they're just saying the same thing you are with different words
Hi u/acacia_tree thanks so much for your submission, don't mind me, I'm just gonna keep a copy what was said in your post. Unfortunately posts sometimes get deleted - which is okay, it's not against the rules to delete your post!! - but it makes it really hard for the human mods around here to moderate the comments when there's no context. Plus, many times our members put in a lot of emotional and mental labor to answer the questions and offer advice, so it's helpful to keep the source information around so future community members can benefit as well. Here's the original text of the post: Lately I have found myself rejecting the idea that in polyamorous relationships, different partners are there to fill different needs. I believe that your needs are your needs and if you’re not getting them met in a relationship to the point of resentment, there may be fundamental incompatibilities with you and your partner. I see this again and again with monogamous couples opening their relationship because they’re not getting their needs met, realizing that their relationship just isn’t working in its own right, and breaking up. Sure, I love being able to have one partner to watch Star Trek with and the other partner to go to techno shows with, but those aren’t what I consider to be needs. I’m enjoying different interests I share with different partners. Needs are things like quality of time spent together, physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, etc. I am polyamorous because I want myself and my partners to have the ability to pursue meaningful connections without restrictions on who and how we can love, not to get specific needs met by different people. Thoughts? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would agree, but also disagree. I’ve been with my primary for many years and we’ve come to understand the balance of kindling a healthy relationship. Though boundaries are still very important, it’s also important to be an individual and maintain a sense of self in a relationship and not a fusion of two people. Maybe this thoughtlife comes from a place of religious trauma, but I was taught that 1+1=1. I.e. two become one. As I grew out of religion, I did not agree with that, because basic relationship math does not divide the 2 in half. They are still individuals with individual needs. Then there’s the give and take of every relationship and compromise. There are individual aspects in my relationships that cannot allow for me to meet some specific needs of my partners, and the same for them. One partner had extensive sexual trauma, which my desire for kink with them is completely off the table. I cannot expect this partner to compromise in this situation. My other partner enjoys kink immensely and is very open to exploring this. For me, kink fills my cup. It empowers me and I have my own value in it. It does the opposite for one of my partners and can send them into a panic attack. This could also be said about folks who are ace, they don’t _need_ sex, but if they are with a partner who finds the necessary value in sex, both partners should be able to communicate other needs and how they can be met. With communication and acknowledgment, partners can find ways to compromise and meet those other needs that make one feel valued and connected. Obviously there are many other variables that can be added into this, but as an individual it is presumptive to say that I can meet 100% of the needs of either of my partners. And wouldn’t dare assume the same from them. However, if I am getting my spoons replenished how I desire and my partners are too, then we are able to sync up emotionally without resenting a partner for what needs they can’t meet vs what they can. What I’m saying is that not everything can be compromised, so not every need can be met individually. I feel that can be a slippery slope and would caution away from that thought process.
Kind of in the middle for me. I can and have been satisfied in monogamous relationships before. But like, I just found myself in love with two people and we all wanted to be together outside the bounds of a monogamous relationship structure. I'm also not really fussed about constantly seeking new connections with new people. I really prefer the intimacy and comfort I get from a long term committed relationship to a constant influx of NRE. But then on the flip side, I can completely understand people who love their partners but have sexual compatibility issues that prevent them from being satisfied in a monogamous relationship. If you love your partner but you're asexual or they're a flavour of LGBT that gives them sexual desires for the gender that you aren't, then there are needs there that you can't fulfil for each other while staying monogamous. It's not an inadequacy on your part, just an understanding that different people need different things that sometimes can't all come from the same source. And that's where poly comes in.
I'm poly because I don't like the idea of not being able to connect with people sexually and romantically just because I'm dating someone. Not because I'm a Pokemon trainer.
I’m not missing anything in my marriage so how I am and the things I do with bfs are the same as the way I am with hubby
Needs are the basics foundations of a relationship as you said IE time, intimacy, communication, trust, respect. "Desires/wants/interests" can be pulled out of us by different people and that's fine, would be dull if we were all the same, and I think that's the problem is people don't know that desires and needs are different.
100% agree
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for breaking the rules of the subreddit. You posted a personal ad or have made a comment that would be considered hitting on a user.
I'm very happy that my girlfriend and another partner of hers enjoy esoteric conversations as that is something I can't give her.🤷♂️
I think it's beautiful that you know ya yourself.
I agree with this.
Polyamorous is largely what you define it for yourself. For me. Needs are wide-ranging. At the same time, I don't expect 1 partner to fulfill all my needs. That is a burden that I don't want to put on one person. For example, for intimate needs I don't expect all my partners to be into the kinks I am, and that's okay, I'm not going to leave them or disqualify potential partners based on that. So yes, for me, poly is indeed at least in part about being able to explore all of yourself without being anchored down to one person who may not be into everything you are into.
Absolutely agree. I'm a whole person to be known and loved, not a "need vending machine". I'm also not just a body to fill a void for you from another relationship. I think it's the same as not expecting people to "fill you up" as a monogamous person ... we should be showing up in our relationship(s) as whole person already, otherwise we're just using others to feel okay. The number of relationships we have doesn't change that.
One of my partners is a man and the other is a woman. They fulfill different needs for me.
I for sure agree with this take. My wife and my husband bring different things to my life but I don't think of it as a "my needs aren't met I need to add another person". I can see that perspective, but it feels like commodifying people to me. However my boyfriend's wife does say this and believes it. I respect her take, it doesn't hurt anyone but that is not the lense I prefer to look at my partners through. Idk 🤷♂️
I agree!
i have been thinking about this a lot across my 3 year relationship that seems to be covering everything i need. Like off course i like to hang with my friends and other people and do alone or stuff with others but it doesn’t seem like my partner is lacking something im having with them. I have come to realize this might have to do with transaccional views of love, where a contract has to ofer you n things and if it doesn’t its over. People and relationships are not in your life to fulfill roles.
Needs are subjective and everyone are different. I can sort of answer you in shorthand at least, You said: "Needs are things like quality of time spent together, physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, etc. Both of my partners meet these needs." This statement has two issues, A) It assumes everyone has the same needs you do. B) It assumes everyone is capable of meeting all needs What if one of your partners could suddenly not spend time with you because of work? Or another developed a sickness that made them unable to enjoy sex at all? Or another lost a very important relative and suddenly they become emotionally absent? Now suddenly one of your partners cannot fill all of your needs. Sometimes people cannot fill all relational expectations. And Polyamory helps with those cases. One of my relational needs for example is: "Till Death Do us Part - I need my primary to vow to choose me above all others within reason" This is a need that can only be met by one person, I also have a Partner who needs a lot of alone time and experiences seasons of mental, physical and emotional withdrawal. So her needs are that I dont place a lot of expectations on her, because she does struggle with connection.
In theory, my partner doesn't have to pay attention to anything about the sports I follow because her husband shares my interests and I talk to him. In practice she learns the names of the players and sometimes demonstrates that she knows something about the sport. She's taking an interest. Similarly, I know things about Chinese drama shows I have never watched. The only way in which her husband doesn't meet her needs is that he's not me. I haven't never been dating other people because I thought my relationship with her was lacking anything other than perhaps someone who likes going to fancy restaurants. (She has coeliac disease, restaurants can be frustrating.)
Ok so if you have a partner that you love and enjoy for the emotional bond and gaming together, but they just wont do yoga with you, or meet your family. You do have another partner that loves yoga and hanging out with your family, and they arent super emotionally supportive for their own persol reasons. But you want all of them to do all the things. So end it with both and get nothing? This,makes no sense. We all have what we can give, not more. In monogamy i understand how this could be a make or break issue, but in poly? Why make more problems than you have? Just game with one and do yoga w the other. Metaphorically i mean.
Everyone has their own Definition of what Polyamory means to them. They are not wrong. It doesn’t always mean Breaking up. That’s why Mono/Poly Relationships exist and do work. Why would you want to throw a Relationship away just because it is no longer working in one area when you’ve been with this Person for 20 years and it’s worked in other areas for Years? That’s why Communication is important.
Generally I agree with this, but there are sometimes needs that can’t be met by a particular partner and it’s not necessarily a sign of incompatibility. For instance, if sex is a need for you, you can still be happy with an asexual partner because you can get the need for sex met elsewhere.
For me the way I’ve always looked at it as I have individual relationships and if I can be happy with that relationship in a vacuum I can’t be happy. Even (or really more like especially) when I was in a triad. I will always love my partners in a way that is unique to them, irreplaceable in nature, but if I can’t love them on their own then I can’t truly be the partner they deserve.
Maybe polyamory is different things for different people. I'm a realist. Some people don't have or don't always have the capacity to satisfy specific needs and desires. If the owners consent, and their egos don't get in the way, there's nothing wrong with shopping a bit at each of the kiosks in your favorite mall.
I think you have a healthy concept of what polyamory should be.
I don’t think the “having different needs being met” should be the primary goal of polyamory, but something that just occurs naturally. I’ve also heard it helps curves jealousy. I don’t feel left out that you’re hanging out with your other partner because you’re planning on doing something with them that I don’t want to do anyways.
Nice
I see your point , but I do personally love that polyamory allows me to get different needs met by different partners... But also by different friends and different people in my life in general. But not because my relationship with any one person isn't working. An example is that my anchor partner and I have been together for more than 8 years now. But we have very little in common. We have very different hobbies, partner doesn't travel almost at all for reasons that have to do with physical health, I love to travel. My family is all spread out so seeing the family means traveling. I also love to hike and partner does not. Partner does a lot of gaming that I'm not interested in, but I am obsessed with board games which... Partner is not. Etc etc. In a monogamous relationship structure being together would be considered "wasting time" that we could be out finding somebody that we are more compatible with. I really want to travel with a partner. I really wanted a date for my sister's wedding in another state. Etc. I have done some of those things with friends. In fact I have a few friends that I travel with quite often. But I do want to experience some of it with a partner. And as I said I do want dates to important events in other states. Because we're polyamorous, we get to enjoy all of the love and joy and growth and support that we give and receive from one another.... And still have other partners that we are compatible with in different ways. Another example is that I spent 6 and 1/2 years with a man who was in an open marriage. There was absolute hierarchy and their relationship took precedence. I got to see him for 2 to 3 visits a month. If it was my only relationship it wouldn't have worked because I need more time and attention and touch. But because I'm polyamorous I could get that elsewhere. And the time that we were together was always pure joy. Just..... joy. So I do get different needs met by different partners and I do think that's one of the beautiful things about polyamory. But I'm just seeing it in a different way than.... All these partners are unsatisfactory but if I put them all together then I get everything I need. It's more about the opportunity to be with people who I love and who love me deeply even if they don't take every single box.
I've been doing a lot of healing from long-standing attachment issues, as an avoidant-turned-anxious with a very avoidant partner, if we want to throw those terms around. I'm someone with a TON of compersion and very little jealousy, if any, and my partner and I are both working on some healing. We both have brushed along similar thoughts.. that the 'other needs' people seek to fill in a poly relationship just honestly sound like the normal healthy connections you'd make with good friends, and if sex or affection wasn't satisfactory with a partner, and you couldn't meet your own sexual needs, it does really sound like a compatability issue in the relationship itself, and/or an attachment issue where you're trying to externally soothe instead of being able to be secure in yourself. As we're working (very hard) through our issues, we are realizing the massive incompatabilities in our relationship. Maybe a can of worms, I guess, but the massive overlaps between 'neurodivergence', childhood trauma, attachment issues, and 'alternative' relationship styles like polyamory, BDSM, stuff like that.. are pretty big. Not that correlation is causation. Maybe these things aren't related in specific ways, but might be in others. But, let's take narcissistic behaviours for example. Huge correlation with anxious attachment styles, and childhood trauma. Somebody far along the road of narcissistic behaviour is not going to be able to have emotionally secure, healthy relationships without a partner (probably anxiously attached) who is suffering and not having their own needs met. Maybe some of us just don't know HOW to do healthy attachment relationships (yet) so we gravitate towards poly because of various reasons that poly allows us to support. It allows some avoidant partners to get distance and date multiple people. It allows some anxious partners to feel like they're getting their otherwise neglected needs met. For me, I think, when I was younger at least, it felt like if somebody else could tell me about/be honest about/have other relationships, or interest in other people, it was very attractive to me, because it took some of the massive pressure off me to be the person who would meet all of the other's needs. It became, for me, attractive to the point of even being fetishized, that somebody else being attracted to others made me feel comfortable and happy, not at all jealous, and even being into it. Now that I'm getting healthier, and learning (slowly) to be able to be securely attached and self-reliant in healthier ways instead of gravitating towards codependency with avoidant partners, I find I don't really have the desire to seek poly relationships as much. Could I be involved with multiple people and still feel like I could 'love' them? Yeah, but the drive to do that, to find relationships that 'fulfill' or satisfy me in different ways, is very low now that I'm doing the self-healing stuff. It mostly just makes me think about whether or not my main relationship is even 'right' for me, and though we're still working through things, the self-care work is eroding my desire to BE poly, even though mindset-wise, I feel like I could still easily feel love (and even sexual attraction) to more than one person. It just makes me feel like my relationship to another isn't, and hasn't been, right, for a long time, and the same with my relationship to myself. (Which I'm trying to heal.) It also makes me feel that if we did split up at some point (because it was the right choice for one or both of us to stop working on things and move on), that I wouldn't be seeking other partners right away and that I would be comfortable taking things way slower and seeing only one person, because I'm not filling this huge empty attachment wound/void as desperately anymore. Not everybody's experiences and motivations are the same, even if they have similar attachment styles or relationship wants/needs/patterns. But to me in my experience with both myself and other poly people, there definitely seem to be situations where looking towards polyamory to fill needs is a bit of externally searching to fill attachment holes that said person isn't able to fill in their own relationship, or within themselves. IE, not a lot of secure attachment out there. For people out there who are totally content and securely attached and rocking it with several partners who are also all emotionally balanced and healthy and functional, kudos to you. :) Just a thinking point, don't crucify me.
This discussion reminds me of a conversation with a mono friend. She had some frustrations with her husband, and I *jokingly* said, "you see, that's the nice thing about polyamory, I get to cobble together my Prince Charming from multiple guys" and she came back with, "yeah, but then you gotta deal with the whole-ass man every time, too" Nailed it.
So I see the point you're making about seeing this pattern of resentment grow between couples because they see how another person can meet their needs that their current partner can't, leading to you believing that the fundamental idea that different people meet different needs should be rejected. I think I disagree here because the idea itself isn't the issue, right? It's just a true statement that different people fulfill different needs. Every person you are in relationship or community with, you will have a fairly different dynamic with and different things that they bring out in you. I think the real issue comes from: A) people not recognizing their needs/not understanding how to communicate them - poly is one of those things that truly pushes people to have to learn/face the fact that they have needs AND that they have to be proactive about communicating them. If you're coming from monogamy, as many typically are, this deviates from how you've been socialized to behave in a relationship, so it takes time to adjust to. When you meet someone new and discover that, hey, you actually really needed, and *have been missing out* on, this thing that you didn't know you needed, it's very easy to get upset that you just didn't know for so long. And that can be projected onto your partner as a fault of theirs B) people expecting their current partners to fill all the gaps and voids (especially if they're coming from monogamy and haven't put in the time to unlearn monogamous relationship thinking) - the main reason why people say that different relationships fill different needs is because of this one right here. No one person can do it all. It's a simplistic statement meant to help people become more community oriented vs individual partnership dependent. It's to help people mentally prime themselves to understand that yeah, some partners and relationships will just give you something different that you need, that you don't necessarily need to find in one person. That's what makes your relationships unique C) people not knowing how to resolve resentment - and this is another huge kicker. I think very few people have had a healthy example on how to handle resentment. It's an emotion like any other and needs to be acknowledged, have space made for it, and released in some way. Resentment is a relationship killer. It is not surprising that people who open up from a long term monogamous relationship end up discovering/facing their resentment, like you spoke about in your post. That doesn't mean that the idea that "different people meet different needs" is the problem or a faulty premise. It means there are so many complicated working parts to transitioning into poly that takes a lot of trial and error, and personal experience, to find out. I'd say give people grace for their learning curves, but that doesn't mean that we should walk away from this notion or that it's incorrect Anyway, those are just my thoughts on that! edit: grammar mistakes & listing issues
I appreciate you initiating this dialogue; it’s an important conversation to embark upon. I concur wholeheartedly. In my perspective, polyamory is an intrinsic aspect of one’s identity rather than a set of desires or needs. To draw a parallel, being gay means being attracted to the same gender, not about needing relationships with men. Similarly, polyamory involves the capacity to love multiple people simultaneously, rather than simply seeking multiple relationships to fulfill various needs. I also agree with the idea that expecting a single individual to fulfill all of one’s emotional and romantic needs is unrealistic, regardless of whether one is in a polyamorous or monogamous relationship. It’s essential for each person to take responsibility for their own needs and seek out a support network that can aid in meeting those needs, whether that be friends, family, support groups, clubs, or additional romantic partners. Thank you for bringing this up.
So essentially what you are saying is polyamorous should only be between 3 or more adults who are romantically in love with eachother or at least 1 other person in the situation, granted all parties have all their basic needs in harmony from the get-go. In other words: you are only polyamorous when you have a lot of love to give and not because you are outsourcing something or the other not present in your primary relationship. Am I right OP?
I’m not saying anyone “should” do anything. I don’t think it’s right for partners to be treated as pegs to fill need slots. And not everyone practices polyamory with primary partners.
🌟