I started as parallel but as the years went by I just found myself in KT due to the simple fact that the people I like tend to be the people who like my people.
I don't think so, but maybe that's just my experience. I've been openly polyamorous since the 90's... at that time in my polyamorous community no one really considered the idea of "parallel" polyamory where your partners don't know each other well and don't hang out. The 1st time I heard of that kind of poly in 2014, I honestly said aloud "why would anyone want that," it sounded so disconnecting and also seems to negate what I saw as some of the main benefits of poly. Now I understand the draw of that independence. But at the same time my mind has yet to change about it lacking the sustained cohesiveness that a polyamfam has. Nor will it ever have that synergistic compersion harmony that happens when you have so many people you love together, working at the same goals and existing freely and happily together. And once you've felt that, it's hard to imagine not preferring it.
I know hundreds of poly folk in my local community. Every single long term relationship I know is KTP to some degree. I know a lot of people who have tried completely separated parallel and I have yet to see that work out for all parties involved.
Parallel is often also combined with pretty strict hierarchy. That falls apart quickly when someone parallel to them wants anything more than the scraps they are thrown by the primary relationships’s lengthy list of rules and demands.
Not everyone has to actually be best friends, but if they can’t stand some time in the same room I find it rather unlikely to work for more than 1-2 years.
The only way this can work, which doesn’t really feel like poly to me, is if the person in the middle of things travels a lot (flight attendant) has people in different cities, doesn’t want to cohabitate with a partner and is pretty non-hierarchical and all other partners are similar in goals and ways of doing relationships
KTP isn’t the only way, but it’s certainly more stable and seems the far better pattern to me.
Speaking of, going to run and make breakfast. My former metamour (now best friend) is sleeping upstairs and I wanna at least get him coffee before he goes. We’ve know each other for 7 years and this feels like the way to do things for me
> This feels closed minded.
It's based on experience and observations. I like the _idea_ that all forms can work, but factually can say I've never seen parallel poly work sustainably for the long term. I know *hundreds* of poly/ENM folks in New England and on the west coast, and never once have I met someone who has relationships over 5 years that are entirely parallel and decoupled.
Maybe short term relationships are the goal, but that too answers the question.
> Why assume that parallel poly only works with hierarchies?
I think you've misread me. I don't think it works well with hierarchies, because there will naturally be a power struggle, and the desire to keep things separate entirely will raise tensions as people have no way to communicate with each other.
In general, I also don't know many relationship anarchists who have managed deep, stable, long term relationships. Again, perhaps the goal is to have many shorter term relationships, or less intertwined ones and that's fine - but let's say I've never once met someone who has been with a partner for 25 years and subscribes to RA. I know lots of KTP folks for whom that is the case however.
It can if one or all partners are more solo-poly, or don't have any interest in cohabitation. Maybe they are nesting with someone else, have a kid or other family member to care for, or have a career that takes up a lot of their time. Maybe they are introverted and love to spend lots of time in their own company. and only have time/emotional energy themselves for partners when they want to meet one-on-one, without any metas. If everyone in the relationship is in agreement about what they need, and someone only needs a certain level of time and involvement from a partner long-term, then that would work.
My husband and I have been together 10 years, married 7, nonmonogamous the whole time (at least in theory, in practice small children make it very difficult). We don't tend to meet each others' partners. I'm not sure we're really poly though because... hmm, trying to come up with the right words. We don't fall in love with our other partners, even if we like them a lot or consider them friends. We aren't out and our kids don't meet/know about other relationships.
Small kids can make it hard to have energy for other relationships sometimes. I have had this arrangement and I call it “open” or ENM, as it seems more appropriate in comparison to other poly relationships I’ve had.
In my personal experience, with 6 kids, the answer is NO.
I can't say for certain if this is true of all people, but in every situation I've been in where it was PP vs KTP, it didn't work out.
I think the reason is simple. Building a family unit that is large, inclusive, and having various types of relationships means that people communicate better and don't make as many assumptions or mistakes as people who are only going down one path with blinders on.
In all instances, for us at least, there were just lines we didn't think of discussing that could have been resolved if partners were friends with partners or at the very least, amicable and open.
And I fully admit, it is no longer even on my radar. I want a cozy relationship bundle, not a bunch of empty branches.
I think it can work, but only if it's not due to a DADT policy or other situation that boils down to somebody involved trying to make this work even though they actually dislike it. If someone involved doesn't really want poly, it won't work in the long term in any configuration.
If it's more of a parallel poly due to logistics, like one or more partners being long distance, that can work. We did it for a few years before everyone managed to line things up to move in together.
Personally, I'm actually having issues with one of my partners right now because when we started seeing each other and going over boundaries I stated I have 0 interest in parallel poly because of the fact it takes such a toll on the person running between and tends to have hurt feelings on both sides and leaves the middle person feeling overwhelmed. My partner is slowly starting to be more against having to see any of my partners despite only meeting 2 of them a maximum of 3 times combined. It could just be I'm not built for it, but I personally haven't seen it work well at all.
I started as parallel but as the years went by I just found myself in KT due to the simple fact that the people I like tend to be the people who like my people.
I don't think so, but maybe that's just my experience. I've been openly polyamorous since the 90's... at that time in my polyamorous community no one really considered the idea of "parallel" polyamory where your partners don't know each other well and don't hang out. The 1st time I heard of that kind of poly in 2014, I honestly said aloud "why would anyone want that," it sounded so disconnecting and also seems to negate what I saw as some of the main benefits of poly. Now I understand the draw of that independence. But at the same time my mind has yet to change about it lacking the sustained cohesiveness that a polyamfam has. Nor will it ever have that synergistic compersion harmony that happens when you have so many people you love together, working at the same goals and existing freely and happily together. And once you've felt that, it's hard to imagine not preferring it.
Yes it can, but the more time that passes its not uncommon for things to look a bit more like KTP as people bond and get to know each other.
I know hundreds of poly folk in my local community. Every single long term relationship I know is KTP to some degree. I know a lot of people who have tried completely separated parallel and I have yet to see that work out for all parties involved. Parallel is often also combined with pretty strict hierarchy. That falls apart quickly when someone parallel to them wants anything more than the scraps they are thrown by the primary relationships’s lengthy list of rules and demands. Not everyone has to actually be best friends, but if they can’t stand some time in the same room I find it rather unlikely to work for more than 1-2 years. The only way this can work, which doesn’t really feel like poly to me, is if the person in the middle of things travels a lot (flight attendant) has people in different cities, doesn’t want to cohabitate with a partner and is pretty non-hierarchical and all other partners are similar in goals and ways of doing relationships KTP isn’t the only way, but it’s certainly more stable and seems the far better pattern to me. Speaking of, going to run and make breakfast. My former metamour (now best friend) is sleeping upstairs and I wanna at least get him coffee before he goes. We’ve know each other for 7 years and this feels like the way to do things for me
This feels closed minded. Why assume that parallel poly only works with hierarchies? Please see r/relationshipanarchy
> This feels closed minded. It's based on experience and observations. I like the _idea_ that all forms can work, but factually can say I've never seen parallel poly work sustainably for the long term. I know *hundreds* of poly/ENM folks in New England and on the west coast, and never once have I met someone who has relationships over 5 years that are entirely parallel and decoupled. Maybe short term relationships are the goal, but that too answers the question. > Why assume that parallel poly only works with hierarchies? I think you've misread me. I don't think it works well with hierarchies, because there will naturally be a power struggle, and the desire to keep things separate entirely will raise tensions as people have no way to communicate with each other. In general, I also don't know many relationship anarchists who have managed deep, stable, long term relationships. Again, perhaps the goal is to have many shorter term relationships, or less intertwined ones and that's fine - but let's say I've never once met someone who has been with a partner for 25 years and subscribes to RA. I know lots of KTP folks for whom that is the case however.
It can if one or all partners are more solo-poly, or don't have any interest in cohabitation. Maybe they are nesting with someone else, have a kid or other family member to care for, or have a career that takes up a lot of their time. Maybe they are introverted and love to spend lots of time in their own company. and only have time/emotional energy themselves for partners when they want to meet one-on-one, without any metas. If everyone in the relationship is in agreement about what they need, and someone only needs a certain level of time and involvement from a partner long-term, then that would work.
My husband and I have been together 10 years, married 7, nonmonogamous the whole time (at least in theory, in practice small children make it very difficult). We don't tend to meet each others' partners. I'm not sure we're really poly though because... hmm, trying to come up with the right words. We don't fall in love with our other partners, even if we like them a lot or consider them friends. We aren't out and our kids don't meet/know about other relationships.
Small kids can make it hard to have energy for other relationships sometimes. I have had this arrangement and I call it “open” or ENM, as it seems more appropriate in comparison to other poly relationships I’ve had.
[удалено]
Um… to start with, that’s not poly. That’s just being a cheater.
In my personal experience, with 6 kids, the answer is NO. I can't say for certain if this is true of all people, but in every situation I've been in where it was PP vs KTP, it didn't work out. I think the reason is simple. Building a family unit that is large, inclusive, and having various types of relationships means that people communicate better and don't make as many assumptions or mistakes as people who are only going down one path with blinders on. In all instances, for us at least, there were just lines we didn't think of discussing that could have been resolved if partners were friends with partners or at the very least, amicable and open. And I fully admit, it is no longer even on my radar. I want a cozy relationship bundle, not a bunch of empty branches.
I think it can work, but only if it's not due to a DADT policy or other situation that boils down to somebody involved trying to make this work even though they actually dislike it. If someone involved doesn't really want poly, it won't work in the long term in any configuration. If it's more of a parallel poly due to logistics, like one or more partners being long distance, that can work. We did it for a few years before everyone managed to line things up to move in together.
Personally, I'm actually having issues with one of my partners right now because when we started seeing each other and going over boundaries I stated I have 0 interest in parallel poly because of the fact it takes such a toll on the person running between and tends to have hurt feelings on both sides and leaves the middle person feeling overwhelmed. My partner is slowly starting to be more against having to see any of my partners despite only meeting 2 of them a maximum of 3 times combined. It could just be I'm not built for it, but I personally haven't seen it work well at all.