#kitchen table vs parallel polyamory

[figs-and-cigs]

Saw some posts recently about Metamour relationships. One person was feeling pressured to date their Meta. Another person shared they didn't like their Meta and wanted to cancel going to an event their hinge was planning purely to avoid having to interact with the meta. Someone else wanted a relationship with their Meta and was frustrated that they didn't want a relationship with them. Another complained that they felt their Meta was over involved with her relationship with the hinge, creating rules that affected their relationship.

My thoughts. You are never obligated to have a relationship with someone you do not want a relationship with. Period.

I think one of the more annoying things I see is this idea of throuples and closed polycules being the "ideal" poly relationship. Everyone is in love with everyone! Together forever with rainbows and butterflies. In my experience most poly relationships don't look like this. Most individual relationships evolve individually and there are varying involvements with Metamours.

Kitchen table Polyamory is often described as more intimate polycules in a sense that the entire polycule can have dinner together with deeper levels of connections -romantic and platonic. Everyone has equal say in decisions for the polycule. While Garden Party Polyamory is where all individuals CAN interact on a variety of levels, may get together for events and activities, but each individual relationship stands on its own and only the individuals have say in their individual relationships. I've found that Garden Party Poly is more common than Kitchen Table.

Example. I have friends who live together. A wife, her husband, her husband's girlfriend, and her boyfriend. They all run the household, are involved in financial decisions, and childrearing. While they aren't all dating (husband and boyfriend aren't involved, boyfriend and husbands girlfriend aren't involved) they function as a kitchen table polycule. They're also open, each of them have relationships outside of this group - those relationships are more garden party. Those other relationships interact with the polycule or each other at events or for activities but don't have involvement in major decisions outside of the individual relationships.

Naturally there are a few things to consider with Metamour. Love is limitless but time in limited. For my relationship, my husband and I have reserved Saturdays as our "date night". It's worth noting Saturdays are usually when social events in the community are also scheduled. My partners know that I cannot make individual plans with them for Saturdays, however they are invited to any community events scheduled - whichs means they will likely see me with my husband, and be put in a position to interact with him. While I'd hope and expect everyone to be cordial, I don't expect my partner and hubby to become best friends. Their relationship is not my business or responsibility. How much they interact is between them. I've had partners who never met my husband, and I have partners who see him every week at meet up and most Saturdays for events.

In the situation where a partner wanted to cancel going to an event because they didn't want to interact with their Meta - I think there's a lot of grey area and questions to be explored. They aren't required to attend events with people they don't like. In this case however, it was the mutual partner's birthday party. To me, it'd be a question of how important the event is to their partner vs. how important it is to them to not be in the same room as their Meta.

While it seems like a worthy and admirable goal to have everyone interact and be friends - this should never be a requirement. Recognizing you are not obligated to have a relationship with anyone, means your meta is also not obligated to be in a relationship with you. This can obviously suck and can feel like rejection, but there can be plenty of reasons why an individual prefers a more parallel poly approach. It could have to do with time, the spoons and energy it takes to have even a friendship, or maybe you just aren't there cup of tea. Just like in romantic relationships, acquaintances and platonic relationships are decided by each individual in them.

With that in mind, you should NEVER feel pressured to date your meta or anyone you don't want to date! Period. If you have a partner who demands you date their partner - this is a red flag for unicorn hunting. No relationship is worth keeping with such a controlling stipulation.

Which means in the last case of rules and couples privilege the same thought applies. The individual shared that their Meta was making rules that affected their relationship with the mutual partner. Things like when they're allowed to spend time together, how often they can text, what they're allowed to do when going on dates. Here's the thing to recognize though - the mutual partner was agreeing to thing stipulations. The meta is allowed to make all the requests they like, but if your partner is agreeing to them and putting blame on the meta - the partner is at fault. The only people responsible for you relationship is you and your partner.

While my husband and I agreed that Saturdays are our nights - I explain to my partners why that's the case (babysitting schedule). I also make it clear this is something I personally choose to enforce, not something my husband it imposing on our relationship. Sure the distinction is based on symantics - but if my partners can't live with this decision and how it affects our relationship it's ok for them to decide the relationship isn't for them. Blaming my husband or couples privilege doesn't help anyone though.

In the situation described, it is the hinge's responsibility to manage the relationships he has with both partners. Allowing one partner to dictate his relationship with another partner is entirely his fault. He's the one giving privilege to one relationship over the other - and maybe there's good reason for that - unfortunately the other partner will have to decide if that's something they want to put up with. Of course everyone would hope the hinge would create firmer boundaries around things like his autonomy to text, or where and when he takes his partner(s) on dates.

My husband/primary partner has very little involvement with my other relationships. His input only extends to decisions that would affect our relationship. With scheduling, it often means on of us has to solo parent for a night. Sometimes it has to do with budgeting as our finances are intertwined. Neither of us are likely to go on a long trip with a partner for these reasons. But those are person boundaries just as much as they are agreements we've made. He also has varying levels of friendship with my partners. Some he's hung out with at events without me, a few he's only been acquaintances with, some he's never interacted with at all. It typically depends on what my other partners are comfortable with first, followed by how they connect at an event or based on personalities.

In short, I think my main point is - you can't force relationships to happen, nor should you.

[figs-and-cigs]

- It'd just be nice to see more polyamory in general. Presenting that it's normal and even natural to like, date, have intimate relationships with multiple people.

- The main presentations are unicorn hunters, closed triads, and closed Vs. In reality, parallel and kitchen table are most common. My husband has never dated someone I've dated, my partners rarely have relationships with each other beyond close friendships. But the trope is usually everyone is in a relationship with each other - which is usually unrealistic and in a lot of cases ends badly.

- No idea, and per my last statement I'm not a fan of closed dynamics and rarely see them work out well. The only closed polycules I've seen that worked were between individuals who had been together for years and were simply saturated. They weren't closed because that was the rule, but because they didn't have the time or energy for new relationships.

People who are polyam/polyfidelitous:

I am researching for a book and would love to know

- what do you wish you saw more of in media?

- any tropes you hate?

- best examples of closed polyamory/polyfidelity in your opinion?

Thanks in advance! Non-poly people are more than welcome to comment, but I’ll obviously give a bit more weight to own voices responses x

[polyamoryfacts]

I don't know who else to ask... im kinda scared that i might actually like a friend (while i have a bf) is it posible that i could be with her and my bf without them liking each other? Is it still polyamory? (My bf knew i liked my friend even before myself but i dont know he might react if i try to be with her too...)

So, I realized I probably did not get the question. Do you mean the situation where you are with Anthony and Beth, but Anthony and Beth are not in a relationship with each other? Yeah, that’s perfectly fine and common and 100% polyamory, it’s called a V or “vee”, because of how the three of you are on the different “corners” of the letter, with you in the middle. For example, I have two partners, who are not in a relationship with each other, and all of them have other partners who I am not in a relationship with, so there are several overlapping Vs in my polycule.

That of course only works if your boyfriend is okay with polyamory in general. If your bf insists on a monogamous relationship, then yeah, that is going to be a problem no matter who the subject of your affections is.

If the above advice fits your situation, you can probably stop reading here. If you want a treatise on the situation where the two partners are not only not in a relationship, but actively dislike each other, read on. (Because I misread your question at first and had already started writing an answer to that scenario, so now you all have to suffer with me.)

... Still here? Okay.

So there are several layers in that.

On the first layer, yes, you can be with the two of them (or heck, more people) if they don’t like each other, as long as they are willing. And yes, that is still perfectly fine and 100% polyamory.

On the second layer, if I had a giant incompatibility with one of my metamours (partners of my partners), and they still chose to pursue that relationship, it might change my view of my partners. To be clear, I am not talking about the level of “I find Sandra’s laugh annoying and don’t like the way she never puts her dishes in the dishwasher when she eats at my place” (not a real example) - but more along the lines of “this potential partner of my partner is a literal Nazi and I am not”. If my partner finds it okay to be with someone whose views I find 100% morally abhorrent, I would find it hard to reconcile that with our relationship, and I might take several measures, starting by talking about it and up to and including ending the relationship and all contact.

Third, not all people have such “low” standards as my “as long as my potential metamour is not literally a Nazi, it’s probably okay”. One can argue about how valid those are, but let’s just say it’s a thing, and you can can probably get them to slightly budge on some things, but the bottom line is still that you might run into “If you are together with X, you cannot be together with me.”

Fourth, not only your partners’ wishes might be relevant, but your own. You may have a preference for separating your relationships from each other. That’s called parallel poly(amory). You may also wish for something where all your partners are not merely polite to each other, but a community. That’s called kitchen table poly(amory) (because of the image of all the people sitting together cordially at a giant kitchen table).

If that would be your first polyamorous realtionship (which it sounds like), you probably don’t need to worry about those distinctions, though.

Fifth, if you are in the “annoying laughter and bad dishwasher manners“ situation, you have the choice to distance yourself from your metamour.

I probably forgot relevant aspects, so I will let people add to that in the notes.

[rotationalsymmetry]

QPRs are valid. At the risk of *excessive* amounts of pedantry, there is no one way of having polyamorous relationships. There’s a spectrum of higher autonomy vs higher entanglement, a spectrum of hierarchy vs egalatarianism (which is not quite the same thing -- for instance people can be primary partners but not live together etc), and there’s a kitchen-table vs parallel polyamory spectrum as well.

For instance. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are a triad where everyone’s equally committed to everyone else, they live together, they share finances, they’re raising kids together, they own their own house, they’re all in a band, they run a community garden together, they form an affinity group for protests, etc. This is what people tend to think of when they think “polyamorous relationship”, especially if all three are romantically and sexually involved with each other, but actually it’s extremely common for polyamorous relationships to have other configurations, and aiming for an equal-side triad (or especially a closed triad) tends to run into problems. (See: “unicorn hunting”.)

Andy, Barbara, and Chris all live together and share finances and act as a social unit, but Chris is only committed to Andy, not in Barbara, and vice versa. If Chris and Andy have a falling out, or if Andy and Barbara have a falling out, then Chris and Barbara probably won’t try to salvage a close relationship between themselves.

Avery has two partners, Billie and Calvin, who are not partners with each other. Avery is deeply committed to each of them and hopes these relationships will last a long time, but is also very committed to never living with someone, sharing finances, sharing a pet etc ever again/ever. Billie and Calvin might spend time together without Avery there, or they might only hang out together when Avery is there, or they may have never met -- whatever’s going on, they’re not partners with each other the way they’re each partners with Avery.

Amy and Bella are committed partners and live together, and Crystal (who lives alone or with roommates) is dating Bella. Crystal might end up in a committed relationship with Bella some day, but it’s not at that point yet. Or maybe Bella doesn’t want a committed relationship with more than one person. Crystal is not dating Amy.

Ash and Brian are co-parents and have custody alternating weeks, but are not “together” at this point. Ash is in a very committed relationship with Corey, but Corey is not acting as a step-parent. (If you’re thinking this isn’t polyamory at all, well, it might not be, but it also could be.)

Archie is partners with Bobby and Cristina, and splits time about evenly between Bobby’s house and Cristina’s house, and contributes to household expenses at both place and considers both places “home”.

This is a non-comprehensive set of examples with just three people. With more than three people, there’s more possibilities. All of these things -- romance, sex, commitment, shared residence, shared finances, shared parenting, being a social unit for events like parties and weddings and holiday celebrations, having pets, etc -- they can go together, but you can treat them as sort of a la carte options. Live together and plan on being together for the long haul, but have separate finances. Have shared finances but not a shared social calendar. People who run more towards Avery’s style of relationships might call their approach “solo polyamory” or SoPo; people who don’t automatically place romantic partnerships as higher than platonic friendships sometimes call their approach “relationship anarchy” (RA). Anyways: I’m down with the last comment, and just want to make it clear that “polyamorous-type relationship” doesn’t have to mean everyone is involved with everyone else, even if “involvement” is platonic. Maybe not everyone in the QPpolycule wants to live in the group house but they’re still committed to being together in some sense, and maybe not everyone wants to be in the band or even likes that style of music, and maybe the dog is just Joey’s but the cat is the house’s cat. You know? I mean, people do actually do this.

so none of yall know what a friend group is apparently