EricaP @67, why would secret-keeping's commonness make it okay? Cheating is common too. Advice columns are about what people should do, not what they do do. Sure, some people would stay -- some people are doormats, see the first letter in today's weekly column.

Joeburner @72, sure, he could have decided he didn't want to move her from professional to girlfriend. He could have decided, once he'd done that, that he wasn't comfortable with it after all and leave. But he didn't do those two things. He demanded that she change to suit him, which is what makes him controlling. Why is this so difficult for you to see?

Undead @74, thank you. And good to see you again.

Beetedee @75, you seem to be misreading. Only Joeburner and a couple of other people think it was fine for the guy to ask her to end her career.

Joeburner @86: "it’s totally consistent to be pro-sex worker, to see a sex worker regularly, and not want to date an active sex worker." SO. HE. SHOULDN'T. HAVE. DATED. HER. Ughhh! (Also, I personally disagree. You're either pro-sex worker or anti-sex worker; holding the bifurcated attitude you describe does indeed make you a hypocrite and a douchecanoe. By that "logic," if being a sex worker renders one undateable, why wouldn't using the services of sex workers also render one undateable? Who then would be left for a john to date, but sex workers?)
Yes, Joe, just stop repeating yourself. There's no way you're going to win this one, because your attitude stinks.

JibeHo @56, if you're still reading, I think the word for closed poly circles is polyfidelity.

Raindrop's lecture @2 also assumes that WORK lives in the US, which may not be the case.

@42. Bi. Well, on this matter I would say that I am in an 'open relationship', rather than poly--and that I'm likely to be a lot less up than you on the ethos and 'manners' of polyamory. But I consistently veto certain types of people, as I see them, from forming anything other than casual or one-off relationships with my partner. Other people are fine to be my partner's / primary's fuckbuddies. The sorts of people I veto are anyone 'like me' e.g. (possibly) my age, rather than younger; knowledge-workers or intellectuals, rather than arty or business types; low-key or pained GQ people, rather than flamboyant NBs or just cismen. I veto these types in principle and only very occasionally in fact based on pure anxiety because I don't want to be supplanted by someone similar.

I wouldn't think this pattern of forbidding inconsistent with being poly. Poly relationships--especially where there is a presumption of primariness--come in many shades, no? There's the dadt convention with other partners; the knowing-about but not-knowing-socially; the knowing your metamour and having a substantial relationship with them, independent of your partner. There's dating as a couple and sharing sexual partners without dating as a couple. The form a primary relationship will take is arrived at through discussion and negotiation with your main partner. I'd think that, whatever form it takes, one's primary retains reasonable rights of veto over other partners. E.g. someone supposes they'll be seeing a lover roughly once every two weeks; the three people involved meet up, and the primary comes in with, 'no, not that guy...'. His or her primary has to find someone else. Of course, if they do this repeatedly or stubbornly, they come to be unreasonable, and their title to be doing poly at all comes into question.

I think we agree about the woman doing sex work.

@43. Bi. My point was that the word 'abandoned' didn't separate out her feelings (if any) at being dumped and her indignation and dismay at his not keeping to his obligations re maintenance. (And surely she does feel he had an emotional or romantic obligation to her). But these are two different things. He doesn't want to be with you? Fine--his loss. But he's not paying child support? The lw should promptly, and without any more feeling than maternal protectiveness, nail him down for his legal and moral obligations for that.

I hope this woman's mistakes are in the past.

‘Abandoned’ is soaked in feeling . I know what being a single mother is like when the father washes his hands of it all, as if it’s all women’s work. Magic fairies come in and do the work of child rearing.
Doubt the LW much cares about the chimdren’s father, Harriet. Though sure he abandoned her, to the total workload.

@48. MikeXS. The supposed boyfriend is paying her to be monogamous with him. Is he monogamous with her? It's not clear, and I wouldn't think it's likely. He's maybe married with a family somewhere. She's in a relationship in the sense that she's faithful to him, and is dependent domestically on his income and 'generosity'. It doesn't sound that equal a relationship, and it wasn't a long-lived one.

@52. Dan. I don't think I could date a sex worker because of jealousy issues--however ill-founded--and I'm willing for it to be my loss. The ex-bf in the story is definitely a hypocritical asshole.

@53. MalevolentAl. Yes. Giving her a car--not necessarily what she needed--is a sign he acknowledges he has obligations or has a guilty conscience. Why not say, 'OK, now we're boyfriend-girlfriend, I'm giving you 20% of my take-home pay'?

@55. joeburner. He would have seen she was poor and had few financial options available to her when they started dating--if they were dating, in his mind. He has no objections to the sex work as such. The alternatives for him are: allow her sex work; supplement her nonsex work income; exit the relationship.

@68. venn. The time has come for me to agree with you--especially your last paragraph, the liking that G&S song and the hinting in print thing. I certainly don't hint in print. Paint it in letters high as a barn door, rather. And even then people can't read it.

Harriet @104, I did allow that vetoes may be viewed differently in relationships with a strong primacy component. If your partner isn't feeling too constricted by your having so much input, I won't say your way is wrong. It sounds like your relationship would be better described as monogamish -- would that be fair to say? In "textbook" polyamory (as described in The Ethical Slut, More Than Two and others), issuing regular vetoes is considered a sign that the person is suffering from jealousy issues (as you describe -- attraction to someone similar to yourself does make you jealous) and therefore maybe not as suited to poly as they may think. Polyamory -- many loves -- accepts and embraces that one's partners may develop feelings beyond lust for more than one person, just as you yourself may; the beauty of it is that you are free to pursue connections as they happen. Vetoes are incompatible with this principle.

@106. Lava. Oh, I don't doubt that her children's father 'abandoned' them. The word's not wrong in relation to his behavior to his kids.

I thought other word-choices were off, too. 'Amazing guy': no, he turned out to be an asshole. Richer than her, sure--maybe more cultured, but still an asshole. 'Reached out' for asking a favor, rather than offering help, is one of my personal unfavorites. I say this not to crab her writing style, but because her manner suggests to me diffidence or a lack of self-belief.

@105 The assumption that men are legally obligated to pay child support and this mom didn't do her due diligence in some way is off base. Yes, technically men are legally obligated to pay, but that doesn't mean they have to. Lots of day laborers get paid under the table or grossly underreport their earnings to avoid child support. Lots of men are able to walk away pretty easily leaving moms to scramble to juggle it all on their own. For instance, in my own case, my ex works construction and gets paid under the table but earns a comfortable living, the only earnings he reports are from driving an Uber on the weekends so I'm entitled to 26% of the $400 or so dollars he earns every month. When he left me and my kids for another woman he requested no custody and has, for all intents and purposes, wholly abandoned his obligations.

@72. joeburner. He could make an attempt to view her sex work as work, just as he would view anyone's bartending or working in a 7-11. As a bartender, she might have to maintain a front of civility, to engage customers in polite conversation--but this would be evidently part of the job, not something potentially incurring any illegitimate sharing of her intimacy or suggesting that she likes the bar customer better than him. He must already have this headset to some degree, or he wouldn't have gone to a sex worker as a customer.

If he can't teach himself to cultivate this frame of mind, he would have done better to have kept their relationship transactional.

@108. Bi. I think the disagreement, or just point of interest, may be more about terminology. You're saying something like (as I read you), 'in poly relationships one is permitted to catch feelings; in other ethically nonmonogamous relationships, one's not--or it's discouraged'. I don't see such a dividing line.

I'm quite happy, as it happens, for my partner to catch feelings for other guys. (He only lives with me on and off; he's going to be dating). I've met some of these young men he's 'very fond of' or 'really cares for', and they're sterling guys. I would not grant myself the same latitude to 'date' as he does. The other people I see in a solo context are very heavily old friends and flames I'm catching up with.

@112 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes
"...may be more about terminology....I don't see such a dividing line."

Of effing course you don't, Harriet, no one here has less of a grasp than you on words meaning things. You really shouldn't show up to a terminology battle as you come unarmed and make a bloody spectacle of walking dead.

At one point it was about terminology, but I admit I haven't followed the thread since (so maybe it's drifted).

(I wonder how many people read Harriet's posts. I usually can't bear to, they seem to me to be some mix of oddly stilted language [when most substantial], 'off-topic-derangement', and banal ramblings.)

@113: Harriet's commentary is just as valid as anyone else's and is far more interesting than your bloviating insulting. You're not the emcee here.

BiDanFan @101 - if a secret doesn't actively endanger one's partner (ie STD risk, diverting their money, or involving them in criminal activity) then I think it's not terribly unethical. It's true that pro-dommes who provide genital stimulation (even without PIV) are probably on the wrong side of the law, which does pose a risk to an unwitting spouse.

Harriet @104 "The sorts of people I veto are anyone 'like me' ... I don't want to be supplanted by someone similar.

If your restrictions don't bother your partner, that's fine. But if your partner is mostly attracted to people like you, then you might want to work on your reactions. If your relationship ends, it will be because the two of you didn't suit each other, not because you were replaced by a better model.

BiDanFan @101 - I don't think I'm misreading at all. A majority of the comments that preceded mine focused on the disclosure issue and were silent on whether it was appropriate for the LW's boyfriend to insist that she stop sex work in the first place. That can be reasonably read as not having an issue with that demand. That may not have been the commenters' intent, but that wasn't at all clear, and stuck out to me. You read the comments differently, cool. That doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension.

Also BiDanFan @104 - Totally agree. The poly literature decidedly counsels against veto arrangements as workable in the long term. It surprises me that some people embark on a poly journey without at least reading the two titles you mention (and I'll call myself out for not getting all the way through More Than Two at the beginning, primarily because my first poly relationship was so easy). Personally, I won't date anyone who is in a relationship with a veto, but to each their own.

Also BiDanFan

Correction - I was responding to BiDanFan @108.

Well, I don't read "the poly literature". Do you have to read that before you can join the club? I'm just asking because I don't read "the feminist literature", yet I absolutely consider myself to be one.

I'm just not that clear on how bright the dividing line is between monogamish, polyamory, and ethical non-monogamy. I don't think that you can declare, with a straight face that is, that no one is allowed to "catch feels" unless they are in a poly relationship, and I fundamentally disagree that ENM is always exclusively about sex. It's a very murky grey area to me.

Speaking only for myself, if I were to open up my current relationship - I would have to play it all by ear as it went. I couldn't declare love or sex off the table for myself or my partner. But if I had an objection to her choice or she to mine - then that person would be off the table. I have too much love and respect for her not to cede to her wishes, and I know the feeling is mutual.

@118: I'm wary of anyone who insists that you only "really" count if you've read the appropriate literature and are up on all the latest shibboleths, but I'm at least as wary of someone who doesn't know what the common pitfalls are. Taking the idea that a poly couple can veto any outside relationships that could inconvenience the primary to its all-too-common conclusion, you get the idea that the best poly relationship is to find a woman who would engage with the couple engage with both members of the couple as a unit. That tends to go poorly for reasons that are pretty well known now.

JibeHo @118 - if you point out a problem with the new person and your partner agrees, there's no need for a veto. A veto is a power play, when your partner wants you to trust their judgment but you don't.

I don’t think it’s so radical to consider or suggest reading some information and guidance on something one has never done before before jumping in. I’m not gatekeeping-I’m being practical.

JibeHo @ 118 If playing it by ear means not setting any boundaries or discussing expectations in advance, I would strongly caution against that, and I’m sure others here would as well. Of course, if you don’t intend to open your relationship and are just talking hypothetically, that’s moot.

@52 I don't necessarily agree: "Meeting a sex worker because you're a client of that sex worker, asking that sex worker to date you, then telling that sex worker they can't do sex work anymore = controlling and possessive and a hypocrite too"

I think it's totally reasonable to meet someone, fall in love, and ask them to sacrifice their job or career or something important in order to be together in a monogamous relationship. A LOT of couples do that all the time - whenever your friends get married about move across the country for one person's job and the other person is just gonna kinda figure it out while a single income sustains? We all have dozens of friends who've been in that boat. You might consider what your romantic situation was when you moved to Seattle and what options were considered.

So, yeah, I'm going to say that wanting to be in a monogamous relationship with someone, even if they were gasp as a sex worker, is totally fair, on the level. I think we should be a bit more correct with our language in these situations - what you are saying is that you suspect he wanted her to cease being a sex worker for the purpose of increasing his ability to control her. It's the latter half of that sentence that's a problem, not the former.

Harriet @114, again, if that works for you then fine. Personally I would look askance at anyone who wanted to curate the rest of my love life, but hey, some people are fine with their partners choosing their wardrobes for them; perhaps those people are equally fine making team decisions on whom else to date.

Beeteedee @116, no, they can't. They didn't talk about Donald Trump either, do you conclude that a majority of commenters have no problem with Trump? The comments ignored the "was he right to ask her to stop doing sex work" question because that's not what WORK asked.

JibeHo @118: Certainly, the concept of ethical non-monogamy is fairly new and definitions are a bit muddled. Nevertheless, yours was wrong. ;)
One key difference in attitude to vetoes may be whether someone comes to a relationship already poly versus opening up a previously monogamous relationship. Poly can be challenging, and it makes sense to take baby steps in the beginning, as jealousy is a real threat. So it makes sense for formerly monogamous couples to have stricter rules such as vetoes and restrictions on spending the night, etc, than people who have been poly for a long time, or who come to poly not by opening their own relationship but by dating someone who is already in a poly relationship (as I did). If either of the partners of my first two poly partners had vetoed me, well, that might have been the last I heard of polyamory. Fortunately they were solidly and functionally poly and had no issue with me as a secondary, which I guess has informed my attitude of "trust your partners' choices" even before I read any books.

Gosh this has gone off topic.

I have known people who have "no catching feelings" policies in their open relationships. I can't see that as being terribly workable, either. Perhaps a better definition would be "is your poly hierarchical or not?" If you have a spouse or spouse equivalent who will always come first, who can and does exercise significant influence over your choice of partners and the time you spend with them, that is an open relationship as opposed to a poly one.

And no, you don't "have to" read the poly literature, but because this is so unknown and laden with pitfalls, I really wished I had when a later, new-to-poly partner and I made vastly different sets of assumptions and hit a serious set of rocks. I know you're speaking hypothetically, but if you do decide to open your relationship, or any relationship, I strongly advise reading and discussing BEFORE there's an unwitting third person in the mix!

I guess I think of "open relationship" as essentially the same thing as the classic monogamous relationship except without the prohibition on having sex with anyone else, where "cheating" isn't wrong so long as you disclose it. Whereas poly emphasises the multiple-ness of the relationships. Does that make sense?

@115. Erica. When you say 'if your relationship ends, it's because your partner met someone more suitable', or words to that effect, you are /exactly/ correct. That's the rational way to think about it; and my 'better model' fears are my reptile brain getting hold of me.

My sense of what I bring to my partner is that it's unique, but doesn't turn on my attractiveness or sexual interest (which are things about which I have lifelong insecurities). The terms of the relationships I've had accommodate this self-doubt--as I think they've had to. Incidentally, my partner also vetoes things for me that are highly unlikely to happen e.g. my forming a strong secondary relationship with a lesbian (something that's never been on the cards), because he fears he's lose me to femininity.

I thoroughly agree with Bi that indiscriminate vetoes aren't within the spirit of poly. As for @123 Bi, it isn't the 'rest of' his love-life; I'm not choosing nightclubs or meetups for him. Don't assimilate ENM to the impulses of a solo poly.

@114. raindrop. Thank you.

@115. Erica. He's mostly fascinating and fucking twinks; and I find it charming.

@116. Beedetee. Not dating anyone who is in a relationship-with-a-veto is a different issue (than being governed, in principle, by your primary's vetoes). I think it's an excellent rule for anyone who wants to explore poly or relationship anarchy in a genuine open spirit. I wonder what proportion of ENM people are embracing poly as wholeheartedly as this, with as little desire to preempt the 'feelings' that either (or any) partner might come to catch for others. I'd think it very few are doing it so unrestrictedly ... but I don't have the facts to hand, have given up on being a sociologist and might be way, way wrong.

My sense was the same as Bi's, that very few commentators thought it was fair for the ex-bf to demand the lw gave up her sex work (after meeting her as a client). It was hypocritical and selfish; just stating the facts of the case expose it as such.

If a 'veto' pertains to a specific person, and an 'exclusion' to a person meeting a certain definition (but whom the partner hasn't yet met; who is as yet hypothetical), I should have said 'exclusion' to begin with. @120 Erica is helpful. I also like, and agree with, what Bi says re the answer to the question 'is your poly hierarchical?' sorting you to either being in a 'poly' or an 'open' relationship.

How many coupled-up gay men, in anyone's experience, describe themselves as being in a 'poly' relationship? The ones I know--talking now of 20 year+ 'marriages'--are in their late 40s and 50s and probably wouldn't describe themselves as 'poly'. Is it the woman or women who make the cell?

Harriet @127, I like the distinction between "veto," which indeed applies to a certain person, versus setting guidelines for whom it is and isn't acceptable for one's partner to date. "You can date people who are younger than me, but not people my age" is not vetoing. "I don't like Brad, you have to stop dating him" is vetoing.

I find the use of the word "impulses" @125 a bit insulting but have no desire to create yet another tangent.

But if I were to create the tangent, I'm picturing one of those "What society thinks I do / What I actually do" memes. Solo poly: What society thinks I do: Whatever and whomever I please. What I actually do: Spend hours trying to schedule dates with three people, all of whom have their own work schedules and other partners and hobbies, and in one case, chronic health issues, around my own work schedule and hobbies and if I'm really lucky, friends. "Impulsive"? I wish! :)

Bi @123 Just want to clarify where I've got this wrong... So Poly means that everyone involved in the relationship is either a) free to have sexual and emotional relationships with whomever else they choose, or b) are fine with their partners having sexual and emotional relationships with whomever else they choose? So there could potentially be dozens of "partners" tangentially involved, a la Alice's chart on The L Word?

And ENM means that there is a primary relationship, and the couple in that relationship are free to have sexual (and/or emotional?) relationships with...

I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm genuinely confused. And since you do seem to be the poly gatekeeper here...

@130 JibeHo
The definition of ENM is simply silent on whether or not there will be an emotional component to outside activity.

Whereas Poly expands that definition to include an emotional component.

So pretty much everything else [for example your (a) and (b)] is beyond the scope of the definitions, and simply varies as negotiated between parties.

/ BREAK /

I noticed some back-and-forth about whether one should read about Poly. Doing so can help vastly more than teaching one what these words mean. It can also prepare one to navigate a whole minefield of challenges. One that really sticks in my mind after my own book-reading, is learning why the primary/secondary (hierarchical) way of being Poly (often stumbled into by couples when they first become Poly) is best avoided as highly likely to be problematic. Oh, and ditto (as EricaP mentioned above) negotiating for Vetoes. (Why? I don't have time to elaborate, I'm simply saying why I'm urging interested parties to read about Poly.)

Jibe @130: If only there were some books you could read ;)

I think we just need to look at the terms themselves. Ethical non monogamy means you are not monogamous, but you are practising non monogamy in a way that is ethical as opposed to unethical, namely, cheating. It could be considered an umbrella term. There are many ways you could be both non-monogamous and ethical. One is polyamory, which again literally means many loves. It means that you're not just banging whoever you want, you have or want multiple committed romantic relationships. There are many possible configurations for polyamory: hierarchical, ie a primary and secondaries; non hierarchical, where all partners get equal priority; solo poly, which I define as not cohabiting or planning to. There is polyfidelity, which is what you described: multiple relationships in a closed circle, triads, quads etc. This is a form of polyamory but not the only form, and in practice a comparatively rare one. Then there are other ways to be ethically non monogamous while having only one romantic relationship, such as open relationships, which may or may not be DADT, or swinging. And there is relationship anarchy, which I suppose can be defined as multiple sexual relationships but no committed romantic relationship. Think that's covered the bases but there is a lot of information already online about this, if you're looking for an Official Poly Spokesperson. :)

So yes, in polyamory the number of partners in the poly web is only constrained by the limits of free time.

There is a lot of murk, it's true. For instance, what's the difference between a secondary (or "non-primary" as some find more respectful) partner and a FWB? Going out on actual dates? Saying "I love you"? It's really up to the people involved to define their relationships. Which is the larger point: to not be constrained by traditional relationship structures and expectations, sexual exclusivity being only a component of that.

I agree it's good to study up on poly and decide what works for you.

@133 - Could you please diagram that out on the whiteboard?

Harriet @125 - your version ("'if your relationship ends, it's because your partner met someone more suitable") is pretty much the opposite of what I said @115: "If your relationship ends, it will be because the two of you didn't suit each other."

Non-monogamous couples don't break up because one of them met someone "more suitable." If they break up, it's because the relationship isn't working anymore.

Harriet @127 In my experience (that is, when I can hear them), gay non-monogamous couples call themselves "non-monogamous," or "monogamish," or just say they fuck other people. I do think that "polyamorous" is more often used by people (of any gender) who want intimate relationships with women. It's a signal that feelings aren't against the rules.

BiDanFan @128
"You can date people who are younger than me, but not people my age" may not be vetoing, but it's still an attempt to override your partner's judgment about their dating partners.

Non-monogamy got much simpler after I stopped trying to control how my partners live their lives. The goal is to date people who I like & love when they are being true to themselves, rather than to date people who aren't quite right for me and then try to pressure them into meeting my preferences.

JibeHo @130 -- there aren't hard and fast definitions for distinguishing among the following terms -- ENM, swinging, polyamory, relationship anarchy, monogamish, etc. People use a term that feels right to them. The term is the just a starting point for a longer conversation. If you're interested in dating them, that's a good time to ask them to talk about which term they picked and why it feels right to them.

Bi@133 Thanks for taking the time to respond.

So basically, polyamory is a wholly owned subsidiary of ENM. I think language gets in the way of communication sometimes. If poly can mean anything, then it means nothing. You could just say ENM and then describe the particulars of your situation and come to a better understanding with someone.

It seems to me that ENM is as varied as the humans who practice it, and rather than needing to read books, you just need to be an excellent communicator with your sexual and romantic partners. In addition to being honest and open, and perhaps most important - knowing yourself.

Then again my view is undoubtedly skewed by the fact that I've been reading Dan for going on a decade now - perhaps this isn't simply a matter of common sense!

Too many great comments from BiDanFan and EricaP to tag them all!

Following up on @137, I found More Than Two’s distinctions between boundaries, rules, and agreements to be an incredibly useful framework.

My poly is egalitarian. I have two partners to whom I am equally committed. They each have other partners as well, one of whom is in a hierarchical relationship. I live alone, but don’t wear the solo poly label because it feels mono-normative.

People practice polyamory a lot of different ways. I find it very useful to ask and answer what does poly mean to you” or “what does your poly look like?” early on with prospective dates.

EricaP @137: Personally, I agree. I would take a very dim view myself if a partner tried to tell me what characteristics I could and couldn't seek in a partner. It is different from saying "I veto Brad" but still somewhat controlling, IMO. The poly gurus would say that if you see people your own age as a threat, that means not that you should ban your partner from dating those people, but that you should work on your own insecurity about being left for someone your own age. Again, though, if Harriet and their partner are happy with an arrangement that allows for them to seek out complementary but not "competing" partners, that's between the two of them. Poly is about setting your own guidelines and agreements, not signing up to one standardised set of rules. I know that I find certain potential metamours far more threatening than others, logically or no, so I'm sympathetic to "please work around my insecurities"-based agreements, so long as they're not just a mask for not really being "open" at all.

Agree that my definitions might not be universal definitions and that if one meets someone who says, "I'm a relationship anarchist," one's reply should be, "What does that mean to you, in practice?"

JibeHo @138, yes, I would count being a regular reader of Savage Love as educating oneself on non-monogamy -- along with many other things! No, emotions are rarely just a matter of common sense, and yes, it's often said that the first three rules of poly (which indeed is often used as a catch-all synonym for ENM) are 1. communicate, 2. communicate, 3. communicate. Assumptions fill the gaps where communication should be, and assumptions can lead to drama.

@129. Bi. I didn't mean 'impulses' in the sense of what someone does when they act 'impulsively'. I meant something closer to 'needs'--acting in accordance with what someone needs to feel they're living with integrity, and in a state of openness to more than one person. I know that solo polys devote significant amounts to time to juggling commitments scrupulously fairly. I get the feeling that--despite agreeing in substance and doing this inadvertently on both sides--we have mildly mutually insulted each other. This is OK (for me), in that we are both probably assertive personalities who like to broadcast our 'truth'.

@136. Erica. I stand corrected on what you said--though I don't see it as so opposite. The thing I said that I thought was more contentious it turns out that you agree with!

@135. raindrop. If you know poly people, it ceases to be something like a school subject that's quite so external to you.

Harriet @141, I meant no insult. I've been very careful to stress that while I personally, and while the generally accepted ethos of the so-called poly community (which you don't necessarily even need to consider yourself a member of), frown at the idea of restricting one's partners' choices, if it works for you and your partner then it's fine. You yourself admitted that it stems from your insecurities. And I get that -- ironically, since I'm subjected to that cruel intersection of ageism with sexism, I feel more insecure about my partners dating -younger- women than women my own age. I sympathise with saying to one's partner, "I trust you, but I'm insecure about X and it makes me feel jealous if you pursue partners with X trait, so I'd prefer if you didn't." The poly community would tell me to deal with my internalised ageism instead of making it my partner's problem, and that's an approach that makes sense to me, but in the real world it is difficult. And if your partner is fine with dealing with a particular insecurity by working around it because hey, he's got his own issues and is happy to compromise because he still has plenty of fish left in the sea, I'm not saying that's wrong. It's not how I'd want to do things, but plenty of people don't share my preferences. For instance, some prefer DADT, which would drive me round the bend. But I don't want to be like that commenter (Surfrat?) who sneers at poly folk who engage in "endless talk" by being open about their other relationships, so I apologise if I have come across that way.

“Generally accepted ethos of the poly community” sounds effing exhausting. Why not just live your life as a poly, (or a feminist) without giving a rat’s patootie about what the people who study “the literature” think?

@143 JibeHo
“Generally accepted ethos of the poly community”

While not claiming to know all /that/ means...

The Poly books I've read aren't about imposing what people in that community "think"/believe, they're about sharing what the community had learned is likely to constitute quicksand/minefields. Who gives "rat’s patootie about" that? People who don't want to unnecessarily subject themselves and others to emotional stress and pain by inventing the wheel all by themselves. People who do /that/ are I think quite validly treading upon respect-worthy ethics because they are unnecessarily treading upon others.

I most recently read the wonderful "More Than Two". Does it include an element of relationship ethics? Yes. But nothing anyone who's not a sociopath would fault the authors for, and nothing that doesn't simply seek to save others from learning many things others already have the (/very/) hard way. I understand being surprised by how helpful such books can be, because before I did I had no idea how very helpful they could be. But looking back that seems silly; the wider society would tend to view being Poly as emotionally impossible, so I think it's only reasonable to expect that doing something regarded as /that/ difficult would benefit from some wise practical advice.

JibeHo @143: Because "people who read the literature" are the people you as a poly will be dating, so yes, you really should give a rat's patootie what they think. You could apply the same to everything. Why not just rewire your house by winging it? Why give a rat's patootie what professional electricians think? The answer is that if you wing it, you're making assumptions about something you really know nothing about, and speaking from experience, that can lead to relationship-threatening misunderstandings. Anything tends to work better if you learn from other people's experiences; why would something as complex as ethical non-monogamy be any different? What's your objection to expert guidance in this area?

@146 BiDanFan
"Why not just rewire your house by winging it? Why give a rat's patootie what professional electricians think?"
/Superb/ analogy, BDF!

@142. Bi. I know you meant no insult. Further, it turns out that my initial comment--that it's consistent with the spirit of poly to exclude, preemptively, certain descriptions of possible metamour--was about 80-90% wrong--was mostly wrong, on the most current poly self-accounts and guides--even if it wasn't flat-out wrong. But at least my comment sparked off an enlightening and interesting commentary.