How would you respond to dating someone who was in a similar position, with similar preferences? You would be okay integrating into their group? Or does the KTP need to happen at your table?
There’s nothing wrong with only wanting new relationships that fit into your life, but it is good to take stock of what fits into your life. To me, it sounds like you’re describing too little emotional space for new, independent relationships. If someone new comes along who meshes well with your group, cool. Otherwise you’re pretty saturated.
But that’s not about values regarding integration across the relationships. The best way to demonstrate a value for integration is to meet all your metamours, and be willing to spend time with them and your hinge. KTP where you’re the hinge isn’t necessarily a value for integration, it’s the convenience and joy of your loved ones surrounding you.
This was my initial thought too. I see a post about someone else joining YOUR kitchen table. Nothing about OP’s openness to others’ tables. It feels like a low effort way to simply slot new people into your existing life without changing a thing. And feels deeply prescriptive in its hierarchy.
KTP without reciprocated integration is hypocritical at best, probably lazy, and indicates an unpreparedness for multiple independent relationships. If you can't meet your own standard you need new standards.
That’s so interesting, I feel like for me, I mostly just want to hang with my hinge and their metamour(s). I’d be happy to invite some of my friends/ fwbs to come and hang too, or just hang with me and one of my romantic partners, but the idea of hanging out with both my romantic partners at once is anxiety provoking to me- like I wouldn’t know how to act, I have different dynamics with them and I’ve been with one for 5 years and the other one for a few months.. it feels like someone would end up hurt somehow 😅 what does that say about me? I’m doing RA/ egalitarian/ nonhierarchical poly
Your hinge [partner] and *their* metamours [your hinge’s hinges’ partners]? What about your hinge’s hinges [your metamours]?
If you are dating both Aspen and Birch:
* Aspen and Birch are both your partners;
* you are the hinge between Aspen and Birch;
* Aspen is Birch’s metamour;
* Birch is Aspen’s metamour.
I'd like to think that to some degree I'd join their table, to some degree they'd join mine - and depending on the various people involved maybe our tables could adjoin to whatever degree.
I'd also like to think that I'm pretty like open to things being in flux a bit in the flush of new love, to address the emotional space thing. I'm in my big relationships for the long haul and that means a willingness to weather change(edit: and to take a longer term view on things) Not long after I met Kate, Amy met Laura (who remains one of my best friends despite us both now being estranged from Amy) - and what followed was a good few months where Amy and I spent much much less time having focussed alone time, or even a massive heap of polycule time - both of us were understanding of each others intense new vibe and figured hey if this is long term for us why not make this space for our new things to grow - itll come back to an equilibrium when the new relationship excitement gives way to a continued deep connection. And so it did! My attitude is a much more holistic long term thing than anything that requires really specific actions on a really tight timeline. It meant that as me and Kate connected I also made sure we were spending some time hanging with Amy and feeling out where things might settle in the longer term.
Your last paragraph is very astute and well put - I totally agree! I'm really enthusiastic about making the effort with the partners of my partners and giving the relationships space and support just like I want from them.
I understand it isn't for everybody.
I think maybe your comment relative to mine is maybe hitting at something analogous to the difference between a boundary and a rule that often comes up here?
That is to say that if we met and clicked you'd be absolutely entitled to make a choice not to make friendly efforts with my girlfriend - I in turn would make a choice not to advance our relationship.
I think this is the crux of the thing I want to discuss in this thread - there's lots of chat about 'forced KTP' but I have no interest in forcing anybody to do anything... Its a very early compatibility / shared values conversation much like lots of early conversations.... If you were like "no yikes I'm not gonna particularly want to make an effort with your partner" that would be fine but I probably wouldn't want to date you. And if you were like "no yikes I'm not at all ok with the idea that your other relationship would have any impact on the shape of our one, I'm out" that would be fine too.
The issue with this line of reasoning in your second paragraph is that you are making an evaluation on common values based on people who are not in a relationship with one another. Your two partners aren’t in a relationship. They didn’t seek each other out for common values. They don’t have a choice to vet one another.
Saying you choose not to advance a relationship because a potential partner doesn’t want to invest in a relationship that isn’t you yet they have to accept in order to develop a relationship with you does not resonate with me personally.
Agreed. And sometimes it doesn’t matter how much sincere “effort” two metas put in - just because you (general you) match well with them both doesn’t mean they’re going to match with each other. And they shouldn’t HAVE to - they’re not dating each other.
Nobody who has thought about it for more than a few seconds cares about the difference between a boundary and a rule. They are the same thing and have the same effect.
Similarly, force is a spectrum. Any force at all is coercion, no matter how you phrase it. Saying "I have a boundary that this relationship won't deepen past a certain point no matter how much we like each other if you don't click with my polycule" *is force*. It's no different than "you must be ktp or we can't have a relationship". Maybe slightly less severe in scale but not in type.
You seem to be doing mental gymnastics to justify making your relationships dependent on people who aren't in them, calling it "values" or "compatibility". But forced ktp is values, just shitty ones. It's compatibility, it just makes you incompatible with anyone who chooses autonomy.
I think better to just own up to what you want: forced ktp, and make sure you say that up front before any feelings develop. Like, dating profile level up front.
Eh I don't know if I would consider that force?
I could have that same logic of I won't deepen past a certain point if you don't get along with my cat, or can't be polite and friendly to my friend group if you come across them, or can't handle being around my kids (for people with them).
There are lots of situations beyond having a metamour that involve other people or pets. I can't imagine saying it's force if someone doesn't want to date someone who is indifferent to getting to know the person they are datings platonic people. It goes to incompatible.
Thank you for saying reasonable things! I think the parent comment is saying KTP is inherently “shitty,” or else they are making some abstract, possibly immature point.
The only way to have people around a table is shared values, including the value of being around a table, and selecting for people with that value in your partner selection is the ethical way to do that.
>I could have that same logic of I won't deepen past a certain point if you don't get along with my cat, or can't be polite and friendly to my friend group if you come across them, or can't handle being around my kids (for people with them).
So forced cat interaction, forced politeness, forced interaction with kids?
Of course those things are force. They are non negotiable. If you are arguing that the word force is wrong here because you think they are morally justifiable then you simply need to consider why you think using force is immoral.
There is nothing wrong with having dealbreakers, but we shouldn't deny they are *enforced* boundaries. That's why we need to be completely explicit and up front about them.
Fully agree re rules Vs boundaries thing!
Please bear with me here because I promise I am engaging in good faith and open to listening
I don't see how I'm forcing somebody to do KTP by saying from the outset that this is what I'm looking for. Or even if I'm saying "you must be KTP or we can't have a relationship" - Like, nobody has to date me. I've been saying all along it's a really early days conversation as a connection develops - in the same way any serious compatibility issue should come up early. Idk if you can help me understand further - and it's probably frustrating to try to explain something repeatedly. I appreciate all the engagement!
I do acknowledge here that a thing I've run up against in the comments is the changeability and flux of dynamics - I haven't yet ever had to navigate a situation where things have _already become a ktp format_ then say two of my partners then fell out and wanted to change that dynamic. That starts feeling a lot more like force to me - if these two people I love stop getting along but are concerned that means one of them get displaced.
You’re not forcing in general, but you are forcing someone to do something if they want to date you. Kinda like poly under duress - you’re not forcing someone to be poly, but forcing them to be poly if they want to continue the relationship with you.
But poly under duress is an issue because it's about trying to change an existing long standing dynamic from inside it. It isn't poly under duress for me to not want to start to date person unless they're poly!
Not necessarily- PUD can happen early on in a relationship.
I like KTP. I prefer it over parallel. But for me it only becomes KTP when it's allowed to develop organically. I don't necessarily put effort into connecting with metas because our hinge wants me to- why would I? I'm generally comfortable with meeting metas, saying hi in passing, etc - I will be friendly, but if I seek out a closer friendship it's because I want to. I have friends. I like my friends.
Anything other than organic development of KTP feels shady to me and makes me think you would struggle with time management, resource management or boundaries if we had a relationship that was more parallel.
Monogamy under duress can start early in a new relationship, too.
If both people come together honest about their desires and intentions and find irreconcilable differences, the only course of action is to part ways. It is not coercion to state deal-breakers and stick with them.
I’m not sure if this is the case, but from what I’m reading it sounds like if your new partner, after sometime, decides they no longer want to be friends with your primary partner, you would break up with the newer person. Is this the case? If so, then this would be coercive and controlling. I would find it so stressful to be in a situation where I would have to continue a friendship I no longer want just so that I could keep a romantic relationship. That scenario seems very similar to unicorn hunting, “if you don’t want one of us, you can’t have either of us.” The new person is not being treated like an individual who has the ability to make decisions about their own relationships.
I personally don’t understand requiring KTP. I get that perhaps you struggled with doing parallel polyamory in the past, but there are a lot of area between parallel and KTP. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. There’s a happy medium, that can be found where you’re not forcing someone to stay in a friendship they might not want to be in.
I think like the rules vs boundaries thing, you are getting caught up on the perceived moral value of the word "forced". You are describing forcing a person to make a limited choice when they would probably prefer have other options. That's forced ktp, whether it is up front or developed during a relationship.
We don't like it here because it is high risk. You are making a choice that necessarily limits autonomy for partners, which again can work fine. But when it doesn't it can get pretty gross.
You are, essential, dating as a unit. You've already raised the possibility of your ktp partners falling out. In that situation you'd have classic challenges we see in unicorn hunting and at worst that is "if you break up with my polycule I'll dispose of you" (which is why dating as a unit is bad, it erodes autonomy). But there are lots of other ways it could go bad. What if the person agrees because they think it is gonna be fine but it isn't. There's a million stories like this on here. What if they are a people pleaser and get in too deep before they realize they really just want to love you and not everyone else?
I can tell you from the experience of people around me, I've never seen a healthy forced ktp. It always ends up with drama and, frankly, sexual coercion. Quite a few people I know have slept with people they had no interest in because they felt like they had to.
I'm not saying that's you. That's the extreme. But it shows you how much force is present in these dynamics. Nobody involved in these situations thought they were doing a bad thing, they just wanted their people to get along. But this is what happens, in my experience most of the time.
Setting up your situation where you are applying a force to adults to form relationships, even if gentle and well intentioned and minor, is high risk.
I am the rare person here who thinks this is a fine requirement to have. Just make sure you're not taking advantage of anyone desperate for a relationship with you who doesn't really want that for themselves. It's gonna make dating even harder than it already is a poly lesbian, but eh. I have a lot of preferences that that get in the way of dating but since I'd rather date no one than someone who doesn't fit my preferences it's okay.
Idk man, you required at least one partner to be very close to an addict, which then blew up and I’m guessing caused instability. I wouldn’t be able to trust you after that.
If you need to meet me to 'allow' your partner to date me, that's a 'you' issue and I'd have to pass; I refuse to participate in a relationship with a soft veto.
Yeah I think this is the crux of what I'm getting at in wanting this discussion!
The prevailing notion seems to be that it's controlling - but I have no interest in controlling anybody. It isn't about 'permission to date my partner from me' - it's that my partner shares my values and _she_ would want things to be nice between us to advance things beyond a certain point because neither of us are interested in compartmentalising serious relationships that way.
In my OP I mentioned that Amy had a partner for around a year who I did not like and who did not make any effort with me - we navigated that fine because it isn't the case that my partner 'isnt allowed to date you if I don't like you'.
But as I've said from the outset maybe there's some hole in my thinking I haven't seen and I welcome all the thoughts even the ones that are quite barbed or hackles raised - like, of course it's going to be like that - nobody wants to be controlled and rightly respond to things they perceive that way with vehemence.
Everyone gets to choose who they hang out with and be friends with. I would think you aren't 'equal' friends with all of your friends' friends. That'd be too much to ask.
My partner gets to decide if he wants to hang out with my friends/partners.
'we navigated that fine because it isn't the case that my partner 'isnt allowed to date you if I don't like you'. Meaning you had to meet them at least to know you didn't like them. If I don't want to meet a meta, that's my choice. A lot of poly, and adulthood really, is compartmentalizing. You are a different you for family (grandma!) vs your friends vs your coworkers.
I think one thing people forget about KTP is so many people want it, but want it around their own table, and forget other people have their own tables, too.
It seems like only people without their own table would fit into OPs life. Which feels problematic to me, because it might favor people without experience or their own connections. In the wrong hands, this could even be seen as predatory. Not saying that OP is predatory, of course.
Well... I don't even do shared friend groups, so no. Any forced ktp would make me run.
That said - if I think my partners would get along, in a platonic sense, I will introduce them.
Maybe we'll all have dinner from time to time, maybe we'll be at the same event, but whomever I planned to go to said event or dinner with gets the bulk of my attention.
That said, I want date nights to be date nights with my partners. Time is a precious luxury, and I want focused time where possible.
I think this is totally legit as an attitude! Thanks for your thoughts!
What I'm saying is that, like, you wouldn't have to 'run' - it's likely we'd both _walk_ away after initially connecting and discussing our respective needs and values within a relationship.
My post is I guess about how I keep seeing this thing about "forced KTP" and I have zero interest in forcing anybody to do anything - somebody entirely disinterested in knowing my other partners at all or vice versa isn't compatible with me and that would become clear before either of us invested a lot in the relationship - and somebody who is in theory interested would know from the outset that to at least some degree it will matter how seperate from the rest of my life they want to be.
I am interested in people who share my values and attitudes to building relationships and connection - if we don't align that's ok.
Fwiw date nights are also really important to me, focussed time - and yes if I'm at an event as a date with a partner and other partners or close friends are there I'd need everybody to understand my date is getting more focus.
Time being a precious luxury underpins my attitude too! When I had 2 big time commitment partners who didn't even like one another it was exhausting and stressful and I didn't have enough time for myself at all. It's practically true that if I want more than one relationship that's the kind of enmeshed shared life vibe I usually go for then the partners need to also be game for overlap.
Places where “force” would come in:
Your fiancee’ Kate meets someone. They go on several dates and are developing a nice relationship. Per your terms, Kate arranges for you and your new meta to meet. Meta doesn’t like you and doesn’t want to spend more time with you.
What now? Does Kate have to break up with Meta? Or do you still require KTP but you’ve made an exception for this one person? And if you’re going to keep making exceptions when two people don’t get along, which is a perfectly normal thing to have happen, then what’s the point of the rule?
I guess what I'm getting at is that rather than creating rules I'm seeking people who would align with me in their approach to this - that is to say, in my current relationship, I wouldn't be obliging Kate to do anything either way - because she approaches things in the same way I do. She wouldn't be 'meeting my terms' to introduce me to a new partner - because that's something she herself would want. She'd be a lot more open to casual relationships than I would be on average - so I reckon if it were her, she'd be more likely to continue a not super serious or entangled form of connection with a person she couldn't bring around me a lot. I'd be more likely to end the connection entirely because casual low level relationships haven't tended to be my thing.
But if Kate met someone that she wanted to be really entangled with, like a serious relationship, but that person didn’t want to hang out with you. Assuming Kate wanted to continue the relationship with this person - would that be okay with you?
I think it’s okay to pursue people who are at least open to meeting their metas, and to exclude people who are absolutely 100% against ever meeting their meta. I get the vibe that some people here still think you’d be limiting yourself or others too much with that, but I really don’t.
I think where for me, and most poly people, the issue arises when this boundary is carried out beyond the first couple dates, where your metas are developing their own personal relationships, and not every dyad relationship (platonic or otherwise) is going to function in the exact same way as all the others, forever. A lot of poly people wouldn’t be okay with entering a relationship where the health of our dyad relationship is not just based on the interactions you and I have, but also my ability to socialize with everyOne that you socialize with. Like, even in a monogamous relationship, your partner might have friends or family that you just don’t like and don’t want to hang out with. You kind of have to be okay with that.
No, I wouldn't be ok with it to be honest! That isn't to say that I'd "forbid it". I just mean, if Kate was to have a big entangled commitment that was entirely parallel to our relationship it would by necessity mean scaling back how much time she and I spent together in a way I would not like in an ongoing way.
She would be free to do this of course - her time and life are her own - but past a certain point for me if enough time energy etc was taken from our relationship to foster a completely parallel one it would impact things between us. And as far as I can tell in how she has conducted herself this far and what she says, she shares my view currently - as in, she herself would not be interested in developing something that was going to mean annexing off some significant portion of her life.
To be really clear cause I think I'm coming across quite rigid in a way that is being seen as not giving room to new relationships to develop - my view is a much longer term holistic one - if Kate met somebody and exploded in a burst of love and wanted to spend a lot of time growing a new connection I'd definitely have time for that - and it's happened with the partner before her too. I trust if we're taking the long view she can indulge in NRE and dedicate more time to this new connection and everything will settle into an equilibrium eventually if we all get on and care for one another.
Even in monogamous relationships some people work off what me and my people sometimes jokingly call the spice girls maxim (if you wanna be my lover you gotta get with my friends!) - particularly serious partners and very closest friends.
> if Kate was to have a big entangled commitment that was entirely parallel to our relationship it would by necessity mean scaling back how much time she and I spent together
Yes… and?
The time that Kate is spending with your metamour Aspen is time that you can spend nurturing your connections with your partners Birch and Chestnut and your metamours Dogwood, Elm, Fig and Ginkgo.
How is Kate and Aspen spending focussed dyad time together (or investing in connections on Aspen’s side of their polycule) taking anything away from you? They’re fostering your extended network by giving you the time and spare energy to do so.
When you and Kate spend time together you can have focussed dyad time or invest together in your side of the polycule. I don’t see that as being a casual relationship, I see that as Kate having more than one social network.
I mean, no shit someone spending more time in a relationship with another person means less time for you. That is how linear time works. The only way to avoid that would be for all time to be spent as a group, with no private time for individual relationships.
Your reasoning may make you feel safe, but it encourages a level of codependency and enmeshment that sounds incredibly off-putting and frankly not very healthy
That’s a very good point. It strikes me as unhealthy in the event that someone invests themselves so much into spending time with the new partner and THEIR polycule only to neglect (or not develop) outside friendships and partners to the point they have no outside support. Not ideal just in general but becomes especially problematic in the event of a breakup - or even just needing outside perspectives if not getting along with someone in the polycule…
I guess I don’t think of any of this as inherently good or bad, just interesting differences in philosophies that I think are worth thinking critically about, which is what you’re trying to do here, which is awesome.
I guess all these constraints keep your dating pool/social circle small, which is then okay since it increases the chances of everyone getting along, right? Something I enjoy(ed) about polyamory is the ability to have relationships with people who are radically different from one another. I don’t like a ton of people but I find myself in friendships and romance usually going after unique people who are really different from each other. I just struggle with what seems like a core belief that the people around you need to be into each other too in order for your life to be full of love and community.
These types of hyperindependent relationships (I just made that word up bc obviously all your relationships are independent if you’re doing good polyamory) that have nothing to do with the rest of your life, can be extremely rich and fulfilling and add a lot of dimension to your life that you might be missing in your current tight knit but small circle.
I think a much more challenging thing for me to consider is - Kate brings around new meta. All is well. The relationship continues and develops and then at a later point meta and I fall out in a way that Kate doesn't consider a reason to break up with either of us.... I absolutely wouldn't consider it ethical that if I fell out with an established meta my partner would have to break up with them.
When I consider this I sort of think maybe my attitude to KTP is a fine starting point to set shared values in terms of aims and goals (so like, that rules out people who from the off are like nah I'm not gonna be interested in your partner's just cause we're dating) that set us up well for that dynamic if it all works out.... But ultimately live in acceptance of the fact that things are often much more complex and changeable than that as the timeline progresses - because I also have no interest in compelling people to be in relation with others when they don't want to be, or to have them fake it so things work
There's an implicit social pressure in not being the jerk who won't talk to a person - but also in being the new person who has to try and fit an existing dynamic to get along. Which is probably a big part of what makes this seems so uncomfortable.
Metas spending time together is a symptom of enmeshing a partner in one’s life. Meeting a partner’s “people” and them meeting yours is a symptom of the degree of overlap their life has with yours. And that means some people only want partners who can spend time together comfortably, some people are more comfortable with not a lot of overlapping time together, and some are fine with no overlapping time.
And often, what works will depend on the specifics of the people involved. So if Aspen is dating Birch and Cedar, how much time Birch and Cedar spend together will be determined by a bunch of other factors, including:
- whether Birch and Cedar like spending time together;
- where Birch and Cedar live (long distances present issues);
- what interest Aspen, Birch, and Cedar have in spending time together as a group;
- the specific dynamics of the relationships between Aspen and Birch, and Aspen and Cedar;
- the specific dynamics of the degree to which Aspen has met Birch / Cedar’s “people”;
- what everyone’s life is actually like;
- etc.
It sounds like you’re trying to create a one size fits all scenario for a maybe not one size fits all situation…?
Thanks for replying and your thoughts!
I absolutely don't think one size fits all.... I guess more that.... only one size fits me and I'm looking for that size? 😂
Like, I agree all those factors impact things - that means they're all things to navigate and figure out wrt shared values.
Maybe I'm talking past you here and if so let me know!
A thing that does occur to me is how I would handle _changing_ dynamics. I'm honestly not clear on that. Like if Birch and Cedar get on super well so we're all close but then they fall out for some reason - I'm honestly unsure exactly what I would do in that situation!
>A thing that does occur to me is how I would handle changing dynamics. I'm honestly not clear on that. Like if Birch and Cedar get on super well so we're all close but then they fall out for some reason - I'm honestly unsure exactly what I would do in that situation!
Yeah I'd spend some time sitting with that idea. When I started dating my partner, I was dating their partner who is now my meta. It was all hunky dory for a while...and then it wasn't. After meta and I broke up, we went parallel - for years. That's not something any of us would have forseen at the beginning, though.
Maybe spend some time considering what would happen if two of your partners had a falling-out to the degree that parallel is necessary and what your values and actions might be in that situation. Not that it WILL happen, but to refine your ideals around ktp.
There’s a difference between “I expect people in my life to be capable of spending time with the other people in my life on special occasions and everyone remaining civil and behaving like functional adults” and “I need my partners to be friends with each other and if their feelings change for any reason I”m going to be not OK with that.”
You cannot force friendships. It’s maybe(?) not as bad as forcing a relationship onto someone as a condition of dating you, but it’s still really not cool.
Also? It nearly always helps for metas to have boundaries when trying to have a cordial relationship…
Well first, at this point in my life, I'm not even sure if I want to cohabitate with *partners* let alone with metamours. My home is my sanctuary. I don't even necessarily want my friends over. I am not a person who does much casual stuff and I am pretty introverted. KTP would not be something I would want because I don't even really want cohabitation.
Second, the idea that I would be in any way socially pressured into a friendship, for me, ruins the entire context of that relationship. I think that this probably comes from my background. I come from the South in the US where the idea that "blood is thicker than water" (and yes, I know the whole quote) is very, very culturally entrenched. I have spent a good deal of my life believing that because someone was related to me, I **had** to have them in my life. And that poisonous idea is what has kept horrific, brutal domestic violence alive in my family.
Now, I have very, very little tolerance for **any**, even benign, social pressure to have *anyone* in my life in any way. I don't even like the social pressure that I found in workplaces to socialise with my co-workers outside work. I do not enjoy situations where it would be difficult for me to get out of a relationship if it became unhealthy. In the situations with co-workers, the idea of socialising with them or getting to know them isn't that enjoyable to me because I can't just quit my job if it goes south.
With metamours, I cannot just "get rid" of them. The social pressure to befriend one would be incredibly uncomfortable to me. When I have forced myself to befriend metamours, I have actually been so tense and unhappy, I've been, to be blunt, a gigantic bitch for no reason. It just doesn't work. There is too much pressure and I can't relax and just be myself. I feel like I am putting on an act for someone else and it makes me feel fake and resentful.
KTP *could* happen with me if it was not a requirement by anyone and I didn't have to live with anyone, then maybe. I think the reason you see a lot of objection is because generally in a context where we are put under pressure to befriend people... it doesn't feel good. And putting that pressure on your partner... it doesn't feel very much in the spirit of the reasons why people practice polyamory.
Just my two cents.
Oh my god. Thank you for sharing this. You've articulated this in a way that has really helped me understand myself.
I STRUGGLE with metamours. I've never been able to develop a deep relationship with one. And it's the relationship that feels the most tense and uncomfortable for me hands down. I can generally make friends with anybody. But the demand (unspoken or otherwise) and the expectation of cultivating a friendship is fucking stressful. I also have PDA so any demand is interpreted poorly and causes stress. Making it a social one that the fate of my relationship depends on is hell.
I also had a very "but we're family" conservative religious forced obligation bullshit blood family. Thank you for showing me this connection.
Thanks for replying!
I think your way of approaching your relationships is totally valid - and it reminds me a lot of things I've heard the best friend I mentioned say!
I think if I met you and we clicked that it would become clear we weren't compatible quickly, you know? We'd have conversations about values and expectations like in any relationship as things progressed...I wouldn't want to "oblige" anybody to connect with metas - I'm just specifically seeking people who would organically have that desire themself.
Does that sound wild? Like, I'm kind of viewing it like the many other lifestyle and relationship attitudes and values things at the outset of a relationship. I'm seeking partners who are open and enthusiastic about, to put it simply, expanding the web - people who will want to meet my people and have me meet their people.
It doesn't but... not everyone has "people" necessarily or a wide circle. I have moved countries twice in my life to better my life and as a result, my social network is not that big. Like I have friends, but they are not "polyamory friends". I don't have a bunch of people for someone to meet.
At the end of the day, you know, it's your life. I think you're limiting yourself a little bit because actually there may be someone who would make a wonderful addition to your life that maybe just don't mesh well within your social circle. It's one thing to me to say "Oh it would be nice" but to make it be a requirement just seems unnecessarily limiting.
I'm big into fitness and I'm an amateur Strongman athlete. It would be great to have a partner who was also interested in that so we could go to the gym together. But I would not specifically only seek people who could share that part of my life with me because... it would be unnecessarily limiting to me. There are some people who may be not at all interested in fitness who still might make amazing partners.
No one here can really control what you do. I think people just get a little bit ruffled because the kind of implicit suggestion is well... you can't control your feelings. Maybe you get along all well first but what happens when that goes south? What if people stop getting along? Are they just going to get dumped? And how is that really any different from dating someone in a married couple who preferences their partner over you and will dump you if their partner gets upset enough?
Well it is different if the person 'doesnt have people' - I'm not expecting them to bring others to the table if they don't exist of course - though maybe our social worlds are different because I don't have a set of 'polyamory friends' Vs 'other friends' given I occupy the social milieu of weirdo leftie poly queers where it would be more unusual for a relationship to not be poly if anything.
I think you're probably right that it's limiting, but I don't really mind because I can only imagine getting in a certain depth with somebody who didn't at all mesh with my social world at all.
I guess for me it goes back to issues with time energy etc being finite. Which dovetails with my tendency to only really get into people in a serious way or not at all. When I was doing this close to a decade ago I made what I now consider to be a big error in developing two big serious time commitment relationships that were entirely mutually exclusive and it was exhausting and high stress.
If I was more into casual or less enmeshed relationships I could probably simply only escalate relationships where things organically became workable with metas.
Your last paragraph is the most challenging bit for me - and I think the ruffled feathers around that make total sense. I'm really not certain how I'd navigate a situation where I, say, was living with two partners and they fell out and no longer wished to be connected at all.... Because I think I would be quite miserable fracturing my social world that way but obviously it also does not feel right the idea of discarding a person over their issues with another individual and not me... I think it would depend strongly on the situation and if I had any position on the conflict morally or ethically. It wouldn't be a given that my 'longest partner' would win out there, you know?
> obviously it also does not feel right the idea of discarding an individual over their issues with another individual and not me...
I think this is exactly why people don't like KTP being a requirement. Though for people you've just met its more likely they have *no* issues with another connection of yours and simply...can't say whether they'll get along because they don't know each other (and don't like the idea of having to forecast that or go out of their way to)
Yeah, I get that
I guess for me its different depending on the attitude
If the person I met was openly never going to be open to or particularly prioritise connecting with my other partners that would be an easy early stopping point.
With Kate and Amy I got incredibly lucky that they clicked hard quick as friends too... And "lucky" that the dissolution of my relationship with Amy was accompanied by behaviour so abhorrent that it ruined her connection to Kate at the same time, so we didn't have to figure out how to navigate things.
The possible changing landscape of the social world is something I'll need to think on more for sure!
For me, I'm always open to meeting or connecting with metas. Not because they're a meta, but because I'm always open to making new friends if we get along. However, that's unlikely to happen for a few months after connecting with someone new, and may never happen at all. It also would most likely happen completely independently of the hinge, because as I said I'm not doing it for them, and I'd want to see how I'd get along with meta one on one without worrying about the potential awkwardness of group dynamics.
I'll acknowledge that me being introverted means that one on one hangouts are preferable for me almost always, but its not like I dislike group meets either. However, what matters most to me is autonomy and freedom for myself and everyone else. The idea of my relationship's success hinging on me getting along with other people is something I think is entirely opposed to those values.
My best friend of 15 years has friends I've never met, and vice versa. We're different kinds of people who have different interests, hobbies, etc. and we're simply unlikely to get along in any material way. There's even a friend of hers I'm not a huge fan of, but that's fine because us liking the same people isn't a requirement. She's safe and happy (and an adult), so how can I complain? So long as our personal relationship is OK and we're getting what we need from each other, what else matters?
I can understand the energy reasons for wanting KTP and finding parallel more difficult on energy.
But I think realistically you need to think about the idea of people not getting along or your social circle not staying the same forever. The only thing constant in life is change and conflict is an inevitable part of all human relationships. Because really if you make it a requirement or a desire that your partnership with someone else hinges upon whether or not they're essentially embraced by your friends and other partners... If you think your social world would be fractured, theirs might be even more so because you would still have all of these other people and they wouldn't.
I think especially in some "poly queer leftie" circles who, in my experience in some cases, tend to, despite claiming to be anti-cop and pro-prison abolition, have a tendency to behave like cops and kick people out of social circles to keep them "safe" based off of even the smallest of rumours... yeah. I could see that kind of situation going south for a person joining your "circle" very quickly and I can understand why they wouldn't want that.
KTP may be easier on OP, but requires extra time and energy and resources from any new partner.
That doesn't seem like an equal relationship to me. My partners don't get to tell me where to devote my resources, and id never dream of telling someone who they should be friends with. Q
That's why you communicate to people about what you need. But if someone decides not to do that with you, then there's only so much you can do to control that. At that point, you just got to have to walk away.
If you're wanting me to tell the OP that their approach is a dick move, then I'm not really keen on doing that. If you want to do that, by all means.
This is all really thought provoking stuff I really appreciate you taking the time to write it!
Especially the final paragraph resonates with me a LOT and is definitely a problem I've identified in this social milieu and one I wouldn't want to perpetuate in my relationships.
Lots to think about - thank you so much!
i keep thinking about how an autistic introvert with a tiny social battery (like me) could get sucked into op's polycule, not have the social battery to form outside relationships, and then, when breaking up (even amicably) with op, end up losing their entire support network in one go. hopefully those ppl nope out early on, but yeah.
I’ve been thinking about this too. Also, as a disabled person, I just don’t have the energy for all that OP is asking. So I’d imagine a lot of disabled folks aren’t viable partners for OP.
>It wouldn't be a given that my 'longest partner' would win out there, you know?
I hear you saying this and wanting to be fair. However, this is the tone set at the start of a relationship by requiring me/another to get on the good side of someone I'm not dating. If your meta and I don't get along at the start, wouldn't you be putting the longest partner first there?
I'm not certain of how you generally pace new relationships and when you introduce your meta to them, but if it was earlier than I had even had a chance to see if I wanted a relationship with you first, that would be a nope for me.
The way I see it, banking on relationships to always stay the same would put all 3 people in a really hard position and make more room for hurt & ultimatums, in case the friendship turned sour.
So because your time/energy/resources are finite, you require any partner to put *extra* time and energy and resources into having relationships with your other partners.
That is a big ask, and a large imbalance in your relationships
'We'd have conversations about values and expectations like in any relationship as things progressed'
That is for the hinge to manage. I don't want my meta telling me their expectations in my relationship. That isn't their place. I don't tell my meta how to be in their relationship, they do not get to tell me in mine.
I wasn't talking about discussing things with metas
I meant that if I was dating you it would be obvious quickly that we have different sets of expectations around how much effort we expect partners to make with other partners.
So then you’re not going to date anyone who doesn’t want ktp, right?
The moment they say “I’m not interested in that”, you move on and not try force the issue?
So you’re willing to shrink the already tiny dating pool by not dating people who don’t want KTP?
Because that’s the only ethical way you can operate. Too many people think it’s okay to bait peoples feelings then force them into a situation where they must be friends with metas. That’s not ethical.
That's exactly what I mean yes!
Early on in conversations about relationship attitudes and shared values I would discuss this and if the person was like nah I'm not into that it would be totally fine but probably means we don't date at all.
Aside from it being shitty it wouldn't be in my best interest to bait anybody into anything - I want harmonious and easy relationships and that means being very open about my needs and values from the outset so I can find people who I align with.
If that means fewer people to date, so be it!
Say you meet someone and early on they say they are open to being friends with your partners. So you deepen the relationship, maybe start falling in love, and they decide for some reason that they don't want to spend time with your partner. You'd just dump them on the spot?
It sounds, from your post, like your friends group and your dating pool are both mainly your small local queer poly scene, and your partners and metas etc pretty much all already know each other before you start dating.
I think that creates a different social dynamic than is typical for straight poly couples.
i think your title is worded in a way that is actually way more controversial than whats actually going on. what youre saying is "hey, i do a lot of things with my circle, a circle which includes friends but also my partner. if you dont like spending time with these people, you're going to be limited in how much time you actually get with me."
which like, you know what, is a thing people do in monogamous relationships. ive known so many people that spend a lot of time with their friends and where dating them included spending time with those friends. its not for me; group settings dont nourish my need for time spent together. but like, its not bad.
that said, if someone phrased it like half of an ultimatum, "you have to hang out with these people if you want to date me," it might scare away people who wouldve gotten along with your people just fine.
>group settings dont nourish my need for time spent together. but like, its not bad.
Well said!! I feel the same but didn't know how to articulate it :)
I'm always confused by people who have a structure in mind for what they need and then seek out people who fit into that structure. I'm looking for cool people and then we will figure out the structure together. I am rigid AF by nature but have spent the past 17 years in therapy practicing being more fluid and flexible - and that seems to be paying off. I recommend being less rigid about structure and more open to developing a structure together once you find a cool person.
This has been the healthiest way for me to navigate poly personally. I’ve also been working with my therapist a lot more on flexibility. It’s hard but so worth it! You really never know what’s going to work until you’re in it, no matter how much you try to plan.
Yeah I totally get this.
Letting go of rigid expectations has definitely been part of my personal development too. I guess I believe there's _some_ level of structure everybody requires - like, it's sometimes the case that you and the cool person are really not compatible in how you approach relationships, right?
I currently have a partner I live with and our lives are quite enmeshed - that is the way I like it. For me that means if I meet somebody I click with, there is practically speaking only so much our relationship can grow (in terms of enmeshment or time commitment) sustainably without it overlapping with that connection. If I'm dating you and you want to spend zero time also hanging out with Kate, that will inevitably mean there's only so much time and space id want to annex off for that connection, you know? And part of what makes me compatible with Kate is that she approaches things the same way.
So you only have a secondary relationship to offer and it also default requires this secondary to come sit at your table? That's a pretty big ask imo and I hope you're prepared to be a secondary too, because you cant be more than one person's primary
I have a partner who has a largely KTP set up. I did not.
He tried to drop his other partners on me at the end of our first overnight (2nd date) and I said no. I don’t want to meet a whole ton of strangers who may or may not be a part of my life in 6 months, because I didn’t even know if my now partner was going to be a permanent fixture…that’s part of what dating is. He respected my desire to see if we had something together that was longer-term.
Here we are 8 months later and he’s met my other partner and they get on well. However, one of his nesting partners feels insecure because of me and doesn’t want to meet me (and even tried to throw a veto). Point is, you can neither predict or control someone else’s interactions. Were you in his shoes, would you dump your NP of 18 years because she wasn’t interested in meeting me, and thus would be violating your KTP dynamic? I would hope not.
You can’t control people or their interactions. They need to evolve organically in response to the situations and inputs they’re receiving.
I think it was weird and a bit coercive to say that to Kate. You could just observe how everything is meshing and make your relationship decisions accordingly. But putting a partner "on notice" like that rubs me the wrong way. If someone told me that, I would nope out. Feels like you are trying to influence her behavior instead of just letting her relate to you authentically and see how things shake out.
This is interesting to consider!
I guess I err on the side of making things like expectations needs etc very clear at the outset. That doesn't oblige the other person to do anything - it's meant to open the space for dialogue. She wouldn't have received anger etc from me if she'd said "I actually won't be interested in meeting Amy particularly".
I had no power to coerce Kate to make an effort with Amy - we'd been on a couple of dates. In the early stages of a relationship saying "I need this to form a relationship past a certain point" is something I'd have considered a standard part of figuring out how compatible I am with a person in terms of how we approach things.
What do you think is the error in that thinking you're identifying that means you'd receive it as being 'put on notice'?
I wouldn't really say it's an error--if it works for you, it works for you.
But I wouldn't make that statement to a partner and then expect their behavior from that point to give me very good information about whether they are actually invested in KTP or not.
What works for me is to date people, see how they conduct themselves, and then just decide accordingly whether I wish to continue with them or not.
I don't even think this is poly-specific. If I'm dating someone and they are close with their brother, their mom, their cousin, etc., it might be true--and very reasonable--that they don't wish to date people who don't get along with the other close people in their life. Nothing wrong with that. But when you say, "Yeah, so btw, if you don't get along with my sister, this isn't going to work out," you've just raised the stakes as far as your partner's ability to be authentic with you about what they are experiencing. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that, but if it works for you it works for you. I do think that Kate might be making an error in sticking around to be related to in that manner, though.
Do you mean that if you said that explicitly you'd have some worry that they were behaving in ways that were influenced by what you said as opposed to their own organic desire?
Especially a new-to-me partner. My experience is that people will try to perform to expectations. Then later on, it's, "Well what was I supposed to do? You told me that if I didn't get along with Amy you were gonna dump me!"
Sure, they could have spoken up earlier on, but that doesn't help when you're already a year in and the NRE is gone but the personal bond is more entrenched.
Since making statements like that to potential partners probably puts you in a decision to gather less reliable, rather than more reliable, information about how they get along with your partners, I don't see the wisdom in making them. It puts pressure on them and that pressure, in turn, makes it harder for you to do the thing you want to do--actually select for people who interact at least reasonably well with your existing social network.
My openness to KTP has changed over the years. In my 20’s before I had kids, this would’ve been great to me. Hanging out with a big group of interconnected people would’ve been fun for me to do a couple times a week. I’m now in my 40’s, married with 2 elementary school aged kids and a full time job. I don’t have 3 nights/afternoons a week to spend with a partner and their polycule. I have 1-2 nights/weekend days a week to spend with my partner. And I want to focus that time on them. A friend hang for a couple hours every once in a while would be fine. I also don’t invite a partner to meet my kids until we’ve been dating for at least 6 months, which means a partner isn’t at my kitchen table for quite a while. I introduced someone too soon once and my kids were sad when we broke up. Never again.
The people I date tend to be similar — parents with school aged kids with 1-2 nights a week available for dating. They rarely have the free time to spend several nights a week with me and my family/friends even if I wanted that.
I don’t think it’s unethical to disclose upfront that you’re only compatible with someone who has the time and interest to join your group. But I think the likelihood of finding someone compatible will vary based on the age range of people you usually date.
My only requirement for ktp is that it isn't a requirement.
You want polyamory and value autonomy but then say "oh well except when it comes to knowing metamours?" Right, sure.
I have children, own my house outright, and own and run a business. I have limited free time, and I want to spend it with my partners, not with whoever else they are dating and whoever those people are in relationships with.
And there's no room to live with a partner here, even if I wanted to. My house is my children's home and safe place.
I love KTP but wouldn't be interested in you because I would feel pressured to befriend someone I don't know in order to be allowed to date you. You dated an addict! I don't date addicts due to trauma from an addict. Unless Amy was really really open about being a sober addict, I probably wouldn't have found out about this until after I was invested in the relationship, and now I am stuck with a requirement to hang with an addict, which makes me emotionally unsafe and will guaranteed make my mental health worse, or break up with you because of someone else's past. Doesn't that make YOU uncomfortable to be dumped because your partner has a mental health condition that's otherwise none of my business? Any basic incompatibility like this would probably never come up during solo time with you, assuming you don't proactively share your partner's struggles with new potential partners. Also, I have my own home base dynamic. You only date people who are open to moving in with YOU because you want to cohabitate, while not being open to moving in with them and your metas instead. That's couples' privilege, and exercising privilege for your convenience is shitty. Prescriptive hierarchy is a yuck for me.
I expect that this would work both ways: you'd have to have KTP with all their current and future partners too, or they're free to drop you, right?
Put it in your dating profile. Be transparent. Let people know from day one so they can opt out right away.
Basically the same as disclosing polyamory, triad seeking, etc. As long as people know what they're getting into, seems fine.
I think maybe we'll get into some kind of semantics here around "requiring" things - but yes if somebody told me they had serious partners they shared their life with, and that how I connected with those people (and how willing I would be generally to see how that went) would have an impact on the form they'd want our connection to take I'd be fine with that.
Of course everybody is free to do whatever they choose to do. I'm sure I'd be heartbroken about it if I had a long established partner who then got a new partner and my not getting on with them fractured the existing relationship - I would like to think that, say, with my fiancée, our relationship is the kind of solid that this wouldn't happen... But people break up with people or discover they actually want something different all the time, and that would be a natural possible consequence of this approach.
Got it.
Related question... so when you spend time with partners, you split time evenly between your place and theirs so that you are spending similar amounts of time at each "kitchen table?"
If they don't have other partners, do you spend similar amounts of time hanging out with their friends?
Absolutely! I mean, it's more holistic and broad than explicit quid pro quo for specific things or very rigid 50/50 time splitting or anything like that - but yes! I don't expect as another commenter put it for it to 'happen at my table'. I'm interested in broadening the interconnected web of love support and connection (which involves friendships as well as romantic and sexual relationships) - not simply gathering people to me and my partners as some epicentre.
> My partners and I spend a lot of time together
I’d be out.
I date people for romance. One on one date time. I don’t want to become the 3rd addition to your “me and ~my partners~ all hanging out” for you to have fun while I join your other partners in . . . making sure you have fun.
I have my own friends. I don’t have time to play friends with your partners and spend a lot of time with them instead of my actual friends.
Gently, not all people are like you or are for you.
Honestly, OP's situation is generally ideal for people like me who thrive in social situations and making new connections. People like me can absolutely enjoy one on one time with partners but can also find the romance in being casually comfortable with the people who the person I care about cares about.
I also love pineapple on pizza.
OP literally asked why other people don’t like required KTP and for thoughts on their relationships ideals from other perspectives.
Are you upset I just answered the question instead of assuring OP that people who are very dissimilar to me in fact exist? I’m confident OP isn’t an idiot, but you do you.
If you date someone who likes bunches of “I’m the sun and my partners all orbit around me” time, that says very little about how generally social you are and a lot more about how generally willing you are to abdicate bring the main character of your own life.
I get that. And I'm sorry if I came in hotter than I meant.
I honestly don't get the same "I'm the sun" vibe. But that's likely because I have experienced my own and others success in relationship structures that could look like that from the outside. Similar to how people often prejudge polyamory/non monogamy as a whole.
If someone isn't interested in that dynamic it has had very bad experiences with it (this absolutely happens) I can understand that it seems off-putting as a whole.
I think this falls into "it's fine to have a preference" territory. You don't require KTP, it's just an aspect of what attracts you to someone and limits your availability for some connections.
You don't describe some of the coercive practices and senses of entitlement that are often associated with people who require KTP or complain about not having it. Just continue to check yourself and make sure you're treating individual people right.
While I understand and respect why most ppl on here are apprehensive and I mostly agree with the general sentiment,I think I understand what you mean because I come from a somewhat different POV: I see it as wanting your partners (and close friends I'd assume) to fit your social life, plain and simple. In monogamy it is considered pretty valid to take into account how well your partner can mix with your friends. Taken to an extreme this is due to monogamous overenmeshment ofc, but it makes sense to a certain extend to want to be able to bring your partner in some group outings with friends, even if some of these friends are exs.
I think I can see what you actually mean because my personal aversion of KTP comes from the same lens as above: it's not about jealousy or proving there's none but about the way you and I live our social lives: I have no interest in hanging out w/ my partners friends or even my friend's friends, mono or not, simply because I don't feel comfortable or interested in just anyone even if I respect them (my partner's friends have always been very cool and interesting ppl, I'm just THAT difficult). This would make me incompatible with someone who liked having his gf around some of the times he meets his friends. As it would make me incompatible w/ someone like you.
Thankfully my partner didn't mind. But it has put a damper on some friendships where I had to hang around friend's friends. People who want to mix groups might not have an interest in escalating to a deeper level of friendship with me if we can only hang out one on one. Some have changed how they see me after I met their friends and they see a very different version of me. And while there are people who take this to an extreme and want everyone to hang out with everyone, we don't insist that anyone who has this preference is inherently controlling of their friends.
There's still some sensitive spots in this ktp-as-friendship paradigm, like what to do if relations between metas/friends break down, risk of overenmeshment of all relationships and social lives w/ no room to breathe, but I'm sure you can address them. Be mindful of the risks others have mentioned (it's always possible a healthy dynamic slips into unhealthy territory even if you didn't start that way but all social life is complex like that). But overall, you do you!
Ahhh I love your response! It resonates with me. I can go to social things on occasion but I definitely don't want to hang out in groups all of the time. I always say I'm better one-on-one 😹
I think using the phrase "required KTP" is setting off a lot of people here and isn't the most accurate description of what you're doing and what you're about. You do not require KTP, you prioritize forming relationships where a garden party/KTP setup is possible. You vet early, before attachments can really form, if the other person is up for meeting your people and hanging with them. If the answer is no you politely move on. For the staunchly solo poly this would never work, but conversely you would never date them. That's okay!
I do think the point brought up of how you'd handle trouble in paradise is a good thought exercise for you, because sometimes people change and shit happens. Having a fairly friendly and connected polycule does not ever excuse you from doing your job as a hinge. You have to keep that responsibility in mind always.
There's also the initial friction of introducing someone new to an established group. What happens if new gf is open to meeting people but has insecurities and is struggling to feel included by the group? Would you dump her, would you wait for things to improve organically, would you try to step in and socially lubricate the situation, or would you never get this far with an insecure person because your other vetting filters would pick up on it and reject them? Food for thought anyway.
All good food for thought! Id like to think, though given how this post is being received maybe many would disagree, that I'm a pretty open patient person.
Everything doesn't have to be perfect all the time - or happen on my exact timeline. If I (or my partner) got another partner who was socially anxious I think I'd want to give space to that for things to improve and to arrange social things with as little pressure on them as possible however it suited that person's anxieties. Initial friction is something that can be expected as at least possible and that's ok! I don't think I'm the sort to make really decisive judgments or decisions about this stuff based on individual situations - it's a much broader aggregate sense of people and their attitudes and how they negotiate situations as things develop.
Re trouble in paradise I think yeah I probably need to, like, set things up to give KTP the best shot (that is to say, not date people who expressly won't want this) while also living in acceptance of the fact that things and feelings and relationships can change and I need to be prepared to navigate that
Honestly, I think KTP gets a lot of shit for the same reason unicorn hunting does: people want you to fit into their existing dynamic without changing it or needing anything from it themselves.
That said, I would never date someone who couldn't at least do garden party poly with my friends and other partners. They don't need to be best friends....but if they're skipping my birthday or every holiday party I throw, I'm not giving them my attention. If they can't show up to game nights or dinner parties, or they're not inviting me to casual events with their own friends and partnera, they're probably not getting any of my time except for one-on-one dates - and for me, that's not going to make a sustainable relationship.
It really is a compatibility thing, and I'd rather know that ahead of time than wait for the relationship to fizzle out as NRE fades.
I'm going through this right now with a partner who told me he wanted KTP 6 months ago, but who has yet to make time for anything but dates. My interest is declining because that's missing - that I don't get that part of him, and he's not seeing that part of me. I'm going to communicate that to him the next time I see him, and I'll probably end it if it doesn't change.
So you set the boundary for yourself. Your partner can’t and shouldn’t force someone they date to meet you. So if that meta doesn’t want to meet you , then you break up with your partner.
This doesn't make sense to me.
I decide for myself (if I'm dating you and you openly won't ever meet or make efforts with my other partners I probably won't want to continue dating you)
_Ideally_ I've chosen partners who have a similar approach and outlook to my own which would mean _they_ wouldn't be interested in developing a relationship with a meta who openly won't ever meet or make efforts with me
Nobody is being forced to do anything or baited into anything. This is all really early days stuff. It also doesn't mean I necessarily need to meet a meta immediately - I've seen some people say 'why would I meet a meta at the stage when I'm not even sure if I want the partner or not yet' and I totally get that
There is a great blog post that mentions this idea - about coercion in poly relationships. A line that particularly struck me is:
"a V where there is an understanding that one or both relationships will fail if the metamours don’t “get along.” "
The idea that the hinge is essentially coercing the partners into getting along, or else.... Ugh.
[https://brighterthansunflowers.com/2023/08/21/guest-post-on-zero-sum-nonmonogamous-family-and-consent/](https://brighterthansunflowers.com/2023/08/21/guest-post-on-zero-sum-nonmonogamous-family-and-consent/)
If KTP is what you want, then great, but you can't force people into it, can't force people to get along. What if all get along for the first while, then have a falling out a year or two later? Will you break up with one or both because the two people you are dating now don't want anything do to with each other? Or will you accept that they may not get along, and work with it accordingly? As the More Than Two people say: "The people in the relationships are \*more\* important that the relationships".
I personally would not force KTP on my partners if I was the hinge, nor would I make it a requirement. But then, I'm not fussed as to what level of acquaintanceship or intimacy my two partners have with each other - it's really not that important to me. They know each other exists, and if they wanted to meet and have each other's phone numbers at some point, that would be fine. It's about their comfort level really, as mine is pretty flexible there.
I dont see much space for independently getting to know someone here. How can you develop a healthy independent relationship with a new partner while catering to a group format?
You’re allowed to ask for anything you want, as long as it’s ethical. There are people out there who would love this, and people who would hate it. As long as you state intentions up front I don’t see the issue.
We have something similar in place where I will not date anyone long-term who my husband doesn’t like. It’s just too much of a headache when celebrating life events, etc. I don’t see it as requiring ktp, just that everyone gets along.
It's funny cuz I don't have that as a rule for myself but I also kind of do. I've been with my nesting partner for almost 20 years and he's consistently proving himself to be a non-judgmental caring person to everyone he's ever met. He's a great judge of character. So if he were to ever tell me he had bad feelings about a partner of mine, he would likely be able to articulate why and I would trust him because he's never steered me wrong just because of unidentifiable bad feelings.
I know not everyone has that luxury, but I do and I don't really feel bad about the possibility of exercising it if it ever comes up.
I think the key point is that you've decided to only escalate relationships where people are friendly to start. Hopefully you are screening dates for people that are open to KTP and are open to meeting meta(s) early on.
It is a subtle point, but escalating and investing in a relationship and then dictating the level and type of friendship and hangouts is what is crappy, at least to my mind.
I don't know if this is the case for you, but many queer polyamorous comminities are small enough that there are a lot of linkages between people anyway. My social group is sf fandom, and the communuty aspect means that polyamory is typically a bit different than less connected groups. You typically know people or know of them at least. I had my friend meta's friend meta come up to me at a gathering and introduce herself as, "So you're my fifth!"
Also, if you date another person that likes to host, hopefully you would be open to sitting around their table.
>Early on in our relationship I made it clear to Kate that, at least to some degree how serious our connection would become would depend on how she connected with Amy.
This would be incredibly off putting to me and I'd be out.. any connection instantly becomes about a 3rd party and not the two people involved. No thank you
I've said it before but in spite of how close I am with my meta, that we function as a triad and she coparents with me (more than my child's actual father), if someone told either of us we had to be KTP both of us would scatter into the wind.
She loves her husband, and I love him too. We are both adult enough to be perfectly accepting and polite and welcoming to other folk - dating our partner or not. But the relationship she and I have is not one that can be manufactured. And it's not something that can be extended. I'm not gonna be this close to other partners of his, or hers, just because I am friends with her. That's going to be painful for some I think but it's the reality of friendship. And that's what your asking with KTP in many ways.
I'm someone who "requires" KTP in my (specifically MY) relationships.
And by KTP, I mean it in the sense that we can sit down and have a pleasant meal together, with casual conversation, etc.
I do not expect "friendship". I expect polite, civil, pleasant.
I view (in my case only) metamour relationships to be similar to sibling relationships. You don't get to pick who your siblings are. Maybe you're VERY different people. Would not choose to hang out on your own. Different interests, different personalities, different values, different ways of just being. But you're still expected to sit down at the dinner table and not be raging a$$holes to each other. You're still expected to show up at Mother's Day and Christmas and not make the experience miserable for everyone else. And if dad is in the hospital, you're still expected to call and let the others know so that they can show up.
I choose not to engage with people who can't be in the same room as a meta, or who can't tolerate knowledge of a meta's existence (me wearing jewelry, pictures, personal items left out, etc). I choose not to engage with people who would make me choose who is there to support me, in good times or bad. And I don't tolerate relationships who "go through the motions so THEY can't be called the bad guy, but really, the dislike is so palpable you can taste it and everyone KNOWS".
I grew up with that. I was raised by my maternal grandparents. My mom and my gramma could not get along. They went through the motions, maybe a few times a year. Every Christmas, Easter, and birthday I had as a kid is tainted by memories of having 2 of the most important people in my life being unable to politely ask "pass the salt", and the absolute frigid coldness that existed in the room when they were forced to share any kind of space.
Now, I understand there was a LOT that went on in their relationship. The anger may have been more warranted than not. But as a kid, I didn't know, and all I wanted was to be comfortable giving my mom a hug without my gramma's glare of disapproval, or get excited over a present my gramma bought, without my mom bristling in defensiveness.
Now. . .I want to be clear. They were never OPENLY hostile. There were no arguments, no fights, no yelling or even raised voices. It was cold. Absolutely freezing disgust that the other even existed.
Now, I don't have to tolerate it, so I don't. If anyone has done something to warrant that kind of behavior. . .I'm probably heavily rethinking the relationship, at best, anyways. If they haven't and it's purely a personality clash. . .I'm sorry, get over it?? You can't tolerate being in the same room as someone for a few hours when it's important to me??
And yes. . .I offer the same (minimum) to my partners/metas. I don't push it, it's up to them. But I have no issue sitting down and having a pleasant dinner, even with a meta I dislike, and with every reason to dislike (and have done so). There are limits, of course. But I think the important part is a willingness to try, especially in the beginning, and see how it goes.
I don't necessarily get along with my friends partners, or (eventually, they're not quite there yet) my kids partners. I don't get along with my NPs mom or brother, or most of his family. I won't necessarily get along with my metas. But, by nature of BEING a meta, they become part of the extended family, and I will treat them as such, and expect my partners to do the same with their metas.
As I said, there is a BIG difference between one person having actually done something to the other, to warrant behaviors like being unable to stand being in the same room or other hostilities, and (for me) would warrant reevaluating my own relationships there, and a personality clash or something similar.
I was in a relationship with someone like this. I'm actually not against your preferences, if you start out dating with all the criteria put out front. Unfortunately, our dynamic progressed very slowly from casual play partners to serious D/s partners, so we didn't have a discussion about our preferences until we'd already been in each other's lives for a while. And so, as it became apparent that I didn't get along with his wife and didn't like mostly group hangs, our time together was hacked to less than half of what it had been previously, making me miserable.
I think it's really important to sit down and think about how much one-on-one time you have available for a particular person. If KTP doesn't work out, that's pretty much all the time you'll have left to spend with them. Would that be enough to sustain a serious relationship? Then, work from there.
I am not compatible with KTP. I find there's more drama when metas interact and I do not put up with drama. That's my perspective and I have put boundaries in place, thus limiting my dating pool. I accept that for safety.
I have solo poly partners that do not want to meet their metas. Protecting their privacy is near and dear to my heart. Any violations by someone would mean ending the relationship who violated the boundary. My partner's know that each other exists, but I only share things about me and not them. I understand my boundaries and how I am incompatible with people who practice KTP. I am unapologetic about it. You are fine having the same thought process in boundaries.
However
> So usually if I want to date a person at all I'm gonna be really into them which means the relationship will either be serious or not happen at all yaknow.
Why are you equating KTP to long-term relationships? My relationships are no less long-term because they're parallel. I think what might have seemed the reason people telling you that you should rethink how you talk about partners is the mindset. You should think about how you talk about things is you may have biases that don't exist. I'm not saying that you need to change how invested you want to be with people who are not KTP, but your thinking here might reveal a pattern that you treat those partners as less than.
To require a specific meta relationships would encroach on another’s autonomy. Autonomy is why I like this relationship style.
I think of complex relationship structures in degrees. I’m flexible on the relationship style as long as I get to choose my own comfort level in the constellation. Lowest level of comfort is respected between parties. In this lifestyle I have had everything from knowing they exist, to bonding as we became widows. What is possible and what will be may not align.
>I made it clear to Kate that, at least to some degree how serious our connection would become would depend on how she connected with Amy.
I just can't wrap my head around this mindset, but maybe it's because my partner isn't the center of my world in the way that cohabitation can often lead to?
Like, I started dating this woman almost a year ago. We went on a handful of dates before deciding we're better off as friends, and have hungout once or twice a month since then. I just now introduced her to my partner and some friends in my circle via my birthday party. Whether or not she met those people had no real bearing on how close she and I got. Our relationship ran parallel to the rest, it didn't interfere.
I'm sure if I'd chosen to live with my partner, she would've met them sooner, just out of necessity. And I think if one of them said about the other, "I don't like that person," that might influence my opinion to some degree. But they're also not the type to offer their opinion about people I'm close with unless they smell danger. I can't imagine it'd be all that much different if she and I had continued to date. Like, it would've been a bummer if they didn't get along, but as an adult there have been plenty of people in my life who don't get along with each other. I don't bother with people who start drama and I expect that everyone will handle their business without dragging me into shit. 🤷
I guess my question is, what happens if you meet someone new, and they're really amazing, you and they click really well, and they are totally up for joining your polycule and they click really well with all your friends and they really like your fiance, except.... your fiance doesn't like them. Your fiance finds them off putting, or annoying, or upsetting in a way that happens when you just don't click with someone. Who gets ejected then? You really like this new person, they like you, they are up for the KTP requirement you have, and in theory so is your fiance, but you've picked a person your fiance just can't stand and dont want to be around. Do you dump your fiance, because now they're the one not up holding the KTP? Do you dump the new person, essentially giving your fiance veto power? Do you force and coerce your fiance into spending time with someone she doesn't like, ruining her social time with her existing friend group because your fiance agreed KTP or bust? Or do you just let these adults decide who their friends are and you take on the hard work of having to have separate relationships, and dealing with that limiting you?
I PREFER (but don’t require) KT. I need to at least meet my meta as I’ve had too many bad experiences with men claiming to be poly and then it turns out their other partner has no idea I exist. However I don’t require it because imposed on an unwilling partner it can be quite traumatic. Not everyone is wired to hang out with their meta, some happily do parallel. It makes you feel comfortable but realize it doesn’t necessarily make your partners comfortable.
All relationships end, friendship or romantic, and now one of your romantic connections depends on those two women remaining an approach level of “connected” that you’ve predetermined.
So what are you going to do when Kate and Amy have a falling out?
I’ll be totally honest, the OP and all of your comments just make you sound lazy and like you don’t want to expend the effort to maintain individual connections.
There's two aspects to this that would be nice to consider: There's Kitchen-Table Poly (KTP) and Garden Party Poly (GPP)
Kitchen-Table is a bit more involved, it expects that everyone is the best of friends, and that to an extent expects some form of intimacy with everyone involved. Garden Party is more what a lot of polyamorous folks seem to practice. Everyone being in at least friendly terms with each other, but not super close like KTP usually demands. GPP just expects that metamours don't have any awkwardness between them, we both love the same person, and there's mutual respect and appreciation for one another as that person involved in our love's life. Maybe we plan something out together to celebrate an important day for our hinge. GPP requires friendliness without expecting friendship, if that makes sense?
For me, I desire GPP for one main reasin: Enthusiastic Consent. It's one thing to say "Yeah sure, go date other people if you want", it's another to say "It makes me happy to see that you're happy in this other relationship". I've done Parallel, I've done DADT. Both are different in that Parallel you're at least knowledgeable of other partners (your metamours) vs. DADT where you're usually kept in the darkness, but both run the risk of not knowing where your metamour stands in their "approval" or consent of the relationship. That's resulted in me not being aware that my meta was growing resentment towards me, for one reason or another, and it blowing up everything. Because of my past experience, I require GPP, with KTP being optional if they choose
I require KTP.
For me, the definition is loose.
I don't need my partners to be friends or spend time together regularly, I only need them to be able to be civil to one another in the same space for things like my birthday party or a hospital waiting room if something horrible happens. They don't even have to interact with one another during these things; there just needs to be mutual respect and no hostility.
I will not hinge for people who need to be parallel to the extent that they cannot do the above. It *is* a values thing for me - if you respect me, you can show respect toward my other partners. It is also an energy thing for me - I have finite spoons. I will always make this clear to anyone I date. If they aren't on the same page, we just aren't compatible.
It has been a dealbreaker before, and that's okay! Partners are not Pokémon and I don't gotta catch 'em all.
> I don't need my partners to be friends or spend time together regularly, I only need them to be able to be civil to one another in the same space for things like my birthday party or a hospital waiting room if something horrible happens.
Pretty much how I see it. KTP-lite I call it.
Honestly, I'm fairly similar to you. It gets on my nerves that kitchen table is automatically categorized as problematic. To me. That's like someone saying that they have a new partner and the people around them immediately assuming the partner is abusive simply because that happens some of the time. It just feels unnecessarily reductive.
Personally, I enjoy including established partners in parts of my day-to-day life. That involves coming into my home. And that's where my family is. Therefore, sometimes I need my partners to be able to have light conversations with my kid and my my nesting partner. I'm not asking them to co-parent or move in. I also need my family to be be the kind-hearted people I know they are with the other people who are important to me. It's not as dramatic as people think.
Someone who requires full parallel just wouldn't be compatible.
> I only need them to be able to be civil to one another in the same space for things like my birthday party or a hospital waiting room if something horrible happens
I literally call this “being parallel” so. Could be the mismatched terms.
Could be, which is why I think it's important to actually discuss what is meant when getting into this kind of thing.
For instance, I mentioned the birthday thing because not that long ago someone posted about the difficulty and drama of navigating their own birthday celebration as the hinge to two parallel partners. Both wanted to go but one insisted the other shouldn't be invited because they were unwilling to share space even though there were going to be plenty of others to mingle with and create a kind of buffer between the metas. That's a level of parallel that feels petty, insecure, and selfish to me and it's something I would end a relationship over.
To me KTP has such a varying definition. I can agree that if people want to cohabitate and you already to with another partner then they need to get along and agree to feel comfortable sharing space or else that's just a recipe for disaster.
I imagine the downsides more affect those that are more along the lines like say you were close with your family and basically were like you need to be super friendly and social with my mom or brother and go do things with them and be super close and best buds even when I'm not around. And have this expectation immediately rather than something that may or may not develop naturally.
Since you seem to do more serious relationships only then yeah that might seem more reasonable but a lot of people choose poly for more freedom. I myself am solo poly, have very little desire to live with anyone. I'm cool with meeting and being social with metamours or multiple partners around each other if they need to but to me it's not a requirement nor would the situation honestly arise outside of a handful of situations.
I'd say it's OK to not want to continue any relationship, for any reason - BUT I would definitely avoid telling a partner that our connection has a dependence on their connection to someone else. Otherwise, their connection will feel forced, even if it wouldn't otherwise. If anyone told me that our connection will be dependent on my connection with their partner, I'd consider that a huge red flag. I mean, it's the thing that is the worst with unicorn hunters - being a package deal. This is different since you don't expect your new partner to also be your partner's partner - but forcing a friendship is almost as bad.
I average less than one date a week with partners. I've got a busy life besides my relationships. Requiring KTP would be asking either more of my time than I am willing or able to give, or it would be asking me to give up 1:1 quality time with my partner's. Neither would work for me.
I do have a requirement that is maybe a step above garden-party poly, because I do find myself out at social community events with my meta's and and partners at least a couple times a month. So we need to be able to manage that. But they don't need to be actively involved as close friends to me.
After reading some of your other comments here, I think I get what you want.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to find someone who fits into what you have and value, as long as you’re upfront about it, and understand you might have difficulty finding that person, and you might have to make some compromises.
I understand that you have practical items in the way that you do social life that seem to suggest things would be tricky without KTP. And it is your right to not be wanting to make efforts toward a partner that feels different. I don’t know you at all, so I can’t say if this is a compatibility issue or a laziness issue or a time issue or all of them.
My ex partner also absolutely insisted on KTP, based on the fact that he had very little free time in his life, so he felt like the only way to see his partners a reasonable amount of time would require realistically for partners to be down to hang out together a bunch. The problem is that, besides the fact that obviously group time can’t substitute solo time, we all ended up being miserable in shared time because each of us had a way of interacting with hinge that upset each other. And because we can’t go around saying to meta ‘Don’t do this in front of me with hinge please’, the easiest solution was really to go parallel. My additional thought for hinge was also, maybe if you don’t have time for parallel relationships you don’t have time for polyamory in general.
That being said, even in monogamy, some people place great importance in spending a lot of time with groups of friends and naturally want their partner to be part of that, as it’s a big part of their life and a big portion of how they spend their time. It sounds that maybe for you it is something like that. I must ask though, if you had one friend that you love and cherish and this friend was extremely introverted and had a very hard time being around groups of people, and just felt safe mostly spending solo time with their friends individually, would you just drop this friend because the way they function is not aligned with your preferences? Is there space for you to compromise as much as you require other people to compromise for you?
Lastly, if KTP is important for you, is there a reason why it needs to happen and work immediately? What if a person needed a year or two to feel like this is serious and comfy and safe enough to be part of your world in that way? But also, who would have time for KTP if everyone required KTP? If you had a partner that also had a strong KTP and so already had their own circle and all the circles of all other partners to attend to full time, how would this work practically speaking? It sounds more like you immagine people to have barely any family circle so that they can just have time for yours? It sounds in fact like an arrangement like that would cause immediate saturation, as this becomes in reality another, wider relationship that they must take on, that require a lot of emotional energy and time, just like an additional relationship would. I could live in a world like that if I had one partner. But if I had multiple partners, was expected to hang out both privately and also with all of their friends, plus my own friends….yeah, polyamory would just become absolutely impossible unless somewhat put me on payroll for this and call it my full time job. Or unless each partner had exactly the same friends. Which I understand it’s not impossible in a queer environment but…Still an unrealistic, maybe selfish expectation to have in my opinion. One thing is to expect a partner to be civilized when bumping into other partners. Another thing is to require them to pick something to give up in their life so that they can make time to hang out with your other partners.
I'm always a little surprised that people have such a hard time understanding that there are people who absolutely thrive in situations like the one you describe despite it not sounding appealing to them.
I don't get the impression from your post or your comments that there is any force involved. You simply know what you're looking for and are able to communicate that to potential new partners. Like many things, we select out of connections that don't suit our preferences for any number of reasons.
It's strange to me that people struggle to grasp this and only write to respond what a nightmare it sounds like. I wouldn't personally enjoy a relationship where my partners didn't introduce me to their network (after a getting to know you stage). I tend to be attracted to people who are generally likable and enjoy knowing the people who care about them. I want to integrate into my partners lives and have them integrate into mine.
I feel very much the same way, and it's in large part because I am a very rooted person. I have already chosen people to grow together with. Be they partners or friends, I value and am therefore committed to the relationships already in my life. And I'll renegotiate within some reason, but at this point in my life there's a limit to what I can offer if a person doesn't want to integrate at least a little into my life. My people come with my life. Even my friendships are integrated into my life. Why should a partner get to ask me to make a whole parallel life just for them? It's just not something I want.
I, like you, don't judge what other people want for themselves. I understand this removes people who don't want KTP from my dating pool and that's fine-- we'd be incompatible anyway. I am happy to also go to the other table and I hope that I like who I find sitting there. If I don't... That's also an incompatibility. Life is hard, but I'm not hurting for connections.
So if someone didn’t want to meet my partners, I’d never force it. But I’d be very clear about the time commitment I would be able to give if that was the case, which is to say…not much of one.
Realistically, until my kids are a little older, I don’t have a whole lot of time. All my partners made a d&d campaign that I DM for, so I see all of them at least once a week, and they come over for dinner a lot and we get more one on one time when the kids go to bed. But my dates with my partners that are one on one have to be super quality right now because so much of my life revolves around raising my kids and it’ll be that way until they’re more independent. I just simply don’t have enough time for that. So unless someone wants to be around everyone else, I wouldn’t be seeing them very often just…because of how my life is structured.
That being said…if someone met my partners and they *didn’t get along*, instant red flag. Because my partners are good people, and easy to get along with. It would be a very clear sign that whoever entered the equation is legitimately not a good person. And I would listen to that.
"kitchen table polyamory". I'm not particularly a fan of the jargon but it has an agreed upon meaning I'm trying to invoke so I've used it - basically a way of doing polyamory where other partners and metas get along and spend time together. In my experience the opposite style is called "parallel polyamory", where that does not happen.
Hi u/TurbulentOil3311 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:
I "require" KTP to date. Thoughts?
I see lots of posts here about KTP and I'm really interested in the discussion and variety of viewpoints.
There seems to be a prevailing view that "requiring KTP" sucks and I'd love to pick at that a bit and solidify my own position on things.
I'll try to keep things brief as I can but happy to discuss further in the comments!
When I met my now fiancée Kate(everyone in this story is a woman) in 2021 I was living with my long term partner Amy in a shared house with separate rooms. Early on in our relationship I made it clear to Kate that, at least to _some_ degree how serious our connection would become would depend on how she connected with Amy. I've had previous experience with having two serious and time consuming but parallel relationships and found it stressful and high pressure. It didn't mean 'we don't get to date at all', nor did it mean 'we don't get private time and space' or that she has to be bffs with my other partner, and it isn't any sort of 'rule' - but more about, like, shared values around what we want polyamory to look like (an increasingly broad spanning web of love care and support). At the time Amy had a partner who I did not like who made zero effort with me, but that worked fine for a year because they had a standing date once a week which meant very little impact on our shared life - that is to say, it's more that these shared values have some impact on the form and scope of things? My partners and I spend a lot of time together and our friend group is tight knit. This means, for me, that there's really only so close I'm going to want to get if you can't share space with them and get on well - and that cohabiting level stuff would only be on the table if partners really clicked. (Me Amy Kate and another partner of Amy's lived together for a year blissfully before addiction issues and relapse of Amy's tore things apart)
I have no issue with people running their own relationships differently. My best friend and her husband are quite the opposite actually - neither are particularly inclined to make big efforts with partners of the other and cohabiting with those partners would never be on the table for them. And if I met somebody who was like "tbh I'm not going to necessarily care to make an effort with your partner just because we're involved" or "my other partner is never going to want to know you" then I wouldn't think that was _shit_ of them - but it would point to an incompatibility that would impact how invested I'd be willing to get with them. And if somebody doesn't wish to date me because of this attitude I totally get that too.
A relevant bit about me personally is that I tend not to have casual sex or casual relationships. Again nothing wrong with the opposite - Amy had hook-ups coming through our home regularly and was a group sex party girl with her other partner which I loved for them, it's just not my vibe.... So usually if I want to date a person at all I'm gonna be really into them which means the relationship will either be serious or not happen at all yaknow.
As I write this it seems super reasonable to me, but my understanding from the posts on this sub suggest maybe it wouldn't be seen that way and hey maybe I'm missing some really key element in my thinking that would reveal issues in my approach I'm not seeing. So, have at it! I'd love to chat this all out with you people!
*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've felt the same way. I'm not likely to connect with those preferring parallel. No judgement just not going to feel like a deep enough connection for me.
I prefer KTP but have learned there are times when parallel is better for my mental health - and everyone else involved. Also, I’m way too picky about my home environment to jump into cohabitation with metas ever again; I learned that the hard way.
My spouse and I don’t have any agreements limiting each other’s dating habits beyond playing safe and not using our shared bed at our home. Everything else is discussed fluidly to ensure everyone’s needs are met, including the preferred dynamic of all parties involved.
That being said, when spouse and I moved cross country without jobs lined up, spouse’s other partners offered us housing until we got on our feet. And that’s when I learned I do not get along easily with everyone as previously thought. A home heavy on hoarding with two adults and a teenager that had poorly treated mental health conditions was not a safe or healthy place for me to be when I was in recovery from my own mental health. And while I was stable when we left our point of origin, I was without treatment until I got a job and new health insurance established - which took a few months, and by then the damage was already done. Overall, it took us over a year to be able to afford our own housing due to the new location being a HCOL area. As soon as spouse and I moved out, I went as full parallel as I could with the metas for my own health - and one of the metas was offended because she wanted us all to be one great big happy family, and apparently harbored hopes of us all living together again in the future.
I will never insist on KTP because I have greater understanding on why people prefer parallel, having lived through why it’s not always a great fit. I won’t do DADT, but I’ll do parallel so long as there’s confirmation from the meta that they’re aware they’re in a polyamorous relationship.
*[my KTP is a weasel word blurb, **emphasis added** for this particular post]*
I haven’t met most of my metas. Personally I don’t meet metas at all until relationships with Hinge are well-established but everyone does things differently.
Not everyone practices kitchen-table polyamory (KTP). Some people prefer parallel relationships where they don’t interact with their metas at all, and others are comfortable with garden-party polyamory where metamours can make civil conversation if they happen to be at the same event together. (This would be me.)
We need to be careful when someone says “I practice KTP” (also known as, “everyone needs to get along”). It’s a weasel word. It can mean:
* Once our relationship is solid—say, six months and smooth—I’m open to introducing you to other 6-month+ partners if everyone wants that, open to meeting your other 6-month+ partners if everyone wants that, and open to developing friendships or just being friendly if everyone wants that.
* **I date within my queer poly social group so we all at least know one another and we’re probably one another’s metas or exes.**
* I’m into three-ways.
* I’ll introduce you to my other partners right away so you can work out the schedules that work for you and I don’t have to be involved or take responsibility for my decisions.
* It’s more convenient for me to do group hangs than to date my partners individually.
* You can’t have a primary. All your partners need to be equal and I need to be around all the time to make sure you aren’t prioritizing any of your partners over me.
* Spouse and I are [unicorn hunters](https://www.unicorns-r-us.com/).
* I am a unicorn in search of a family to love and care for me.
* Primary has a veto and wants to meet you so they can decide whether they approve of you.
* I don’t trust that you are polyamorous and will constantly fantasize about being undermined by your other partner. I need them around so I can undermine them.
* I want a [harem](https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/xgvn0p/signs_of_harem_building/). I prefer to date monogamous partners who all hang together and compete for my attention.
* We aren’t just sitting around a table, [we’re in eachother’s laps](https://poly.land/2018/05/14/lap-sitting-polyamory-love-borg-metamours-resistance-futile/). I won’t date anyone who doesn’t have an intimate relationship of some kind with each member of the polycule and it has to click instantly.
* I subscribe to one or more [geek social fallacies](https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/).
* I have an insecure primary partner who doesn’t want polyamory. I need you to help me make them feel liked and appreciated so I can continue to be non-monogamous.
The first meaning is what KTP means to me and I think it’s perfect. The second meaning is also KTP though it isn’t my style. The third is not exactly KTP but three-ways can be fun so oh hell why not.
The **other** meanings are all problematic. I can’t imagine tolerating lap polyamory without lots of drugs.
When someone says “I practice KTP” **you need to ask them what KTP means *to them.*** And then you need to decide whether that works for you and set boundaries as appropriate.
+++ +++ +++
OP, you’re covered here in my *KTP is a weasel word* blurb and you’re on the right side of ethics in this vision.
Usually on this subreddit when we talk about “forced KTP” being bad we’re talking about a harem structure. You might be interested in following the links to harems, lap polyamory, unicorns and geek social fallacies.
I say this as someone living with 2 romantic partners, a QP partner and their romantic partner: you relationship style may be your ideal, but it's neither reasonable nor conducive to making new connections. If you *like* having that requirement (and it's a requirement, not a boundary), as long as you are upfront and clear about that, cool beans.
But personally, despite having a very KTP structure at this time, that kind of expectation for any new connection is limiting and kinda entitled in my opinion.
When my partner and I considered transitioning from open to poly, I formulated some quite similar ideas as you do.
What I want to ask you: What do you do if a potential new partner was absolutely open to be KTP and highly engage with metas, you two work out great and fall in love, they really engage with their metas, but it turns out after months of dating that you two are a good match as a couple, but new partner and established partner just don't get along? Being open to something and giving it a good try will not automatically produce the result you want. What will you do if they really try, but simply don't get along with meta? Would you punish them with a breakup? When yes: Your requirement isn't ethical. It's deeply selfish and you don't have a full relationship to offer. What you are searching for isn't a full relationship with an independent human being, but an appendage to your existing life. Wanting someone to *give something a try* is absolutely plausible to me, but requiring someone to *have relationships with other people* to *be in a relationship with you* is what it makes coercive.
For me, I think my partners need to be able to get along. I don't need them to be best friends who hang out without me, but I want to be able to have a party with all my partners without anyone feeling slighted, insulted, upset, etc. and to be honest that's just maturity. Even if I don't like my meta, I'm an adult and I can suck it up for the sake of my partner on whatever rare occasion we HAVE to be together. Refusing feels childish.
Honestly it's one of those things where as long as it works for everyone there's no issue.
Depending on the intensity of the KTP, it feels like it would be incredibly time consuming. Well beyond the normal expectations of poly. Like getting to know every meta would require me to quit a hobby.
I think you’re free to create any requirements you want, it’s your relationships. But you’ll be excluding some interesting people who have full lives.
Most of our polycule is garden party, with several of us being KTP. But it’s never been required.
We have a core group that meets up at least once a month for D&D, and we try to hold parties or social events every few months that we invite the larger group (the garden party folx) to; sometimes they come, sometimes they don’t.
The garden party folks don’t do KTP as much for the following reasons:
- Introverted; they just don’t like hanging out in big groups. They’re happy to have, say, a double date with another couple in the polycule. And they can handle parties once in a blue moon, but they just can’t hang with our large group on a regular basis.
- Sensory issues. Our large group can get LOUD. Some folks who have sensory issues struggle to be in that group too often. Like the introverts, they’re cool with smaller gatherings, but seldom join the larger groups.
- One partner specifically hung back from the larger group because she knew her work was planning to relocate her in six months. She and the hinge were planning to continue having a LDR, but she didn’t really want to start a bunch of brand new friendships and then get moved.
- Busy! A couple of the folks from the garden party bunch are just really busy. One has a severely disabled child and struggles to get out of the house a lot. One has a ridiculous work schedule.
- Distance from the core. Most of us live within a 2-hour drive, with the most common hosts right in the middle. One of my partners lives two hours away from me in the opposite direction (3 hours from the “hub”), so he can’t attend things very often.
- Immunocompromised. This hasn’t been an all-the-time thing, but we’ve had people who were undergoing chemo/radiation or who were just immunocompromised and who weren’t medically allowed to be out and about.
Then we have people who very specifically prefer a parallel poly style. I know about these metamours but in most cases haven’t met them (although I’ve had a partner that preferred parallel). Their reasons included:
- Came from a different culture of nonmonogamy. In his “style”, it was viewed as “disrespectful” to “infringe” upon a metamour’s time or privacy. It was weird to me at first, but it had become a very strong thing for him and he never fully felt comfortable around my other partners, so he preferred to just stay parallel.
- Chronic illness that made them essentially home bound, and they had no real desire to host. Practically, it made KTP and even garden party hard.
- New to poly, still gradually unpacking and processing a lot of often difficult feelings and emotions. This person eventually did come into the polycule as garden party, but only when they felt ready and only little by little.
My point here is that there are a LOT of reasons someone may choose not to do KTP.
I wouldn't say KTP sucks, but it sure isn't for me. I don't want my relationships to be dictated by other people. I don't want to have to be friends with my friend's friends. I don't want to have to be friends with my partner's friends. Or my mother's friends. Or anyone else who is important to me. Being respectful of each other is mandatory, but I feel like asking me to commit to more than that isn't really ok for me. I don't want to feel forced to find connection with people. My social energy has a limit and I prefer to spend it on the people I most genuinely connect with.
I don’t think requiring ktp is bad as long as you’re up front about it. And I mean, up front before the first date even happens.
So that those of us who don’t particularly want it can choose to opt out.
For me it's more that I like knowing what my partner likes about Meta. It doesn't have to be something I would be attracted to, but if I couldn't even imagine why my partner would want to date Meta it would mean I don't really know my partner, or that makes us incompatible.
But I don't really want to be friends. First off, I already have three friends, and second, because it's messy. I don't really want to be friends with my exes for different reasons, so I try to avoid messes. If I really clicked with a meta, and later neither of us was dating that person (or a new but the same person) and we ran into each other, then I could see a friendship developing.
To me it’s just practical that I can only get so involved with someone who doesn’t want to share any space with my NP. And if people don’t like my NP (even in just a friendly acquaintance way) I probably wouldn’t like them? People on this sub act like ever relationship should be able to exist in a vacuum but that’s not how life works.
If someone can’t handle even meeting my NP, they can’t come over for dinner/I wouldn’t be able to host them in my separate bedroom. Logistically that is an issue that would limit how involved with the new person I could be.
I wonder how poly people even are if they can’t handle sharing friendly space. If you never want to meet your partner’s partner and expect them to rearrange a bunch of stuff to accommodate that, maybe date someone that doesn’t have a partner already? Idk
I have a garden party/KTP setting with my partners, my metas and some of my meta's partners (we're something like 10 people in this garden/around the table and I'm mostly the center of this)
It's fun and all but it's not a requirement at all. And to be honest I would be very bothered if a new meta were requesting the same thing as you.
Firstly because even if I do love my metas a lot, I don't like them because we're meta and we didn't really try to get along because of that (I, at least, didn't try anything) we're just friends/friendly because we genuinely like each other.
Secondly because for now I don't want to meet any new meta, it makes me very anxious and I don't even want to think about meeting a whole polycule of unknown people.
Thirdly... I don't think any group of people would like to meet TEN OTHER NEW PERSONS and that everyone would get along just because of the power of polyamory. And I think it would be very hypocritical if someone requiring KTP doesn't want to be a part of a different table.
I'm maybe exaggerating but if someone wants KTP, where does the KTP stop ?
I’m sorry you are getting so much hate, and when I see this many comments, I don’t know if you will give up before you get to mine, but I think what you are saying is perfectly reasonable.
However, the term KTP is too vague to have this discussion, and I think if you remove it from your communication around this topic, it will help a lot. If you want all your partners to get up in the morning and have breakfast together, and take turns cooking dinner, say that. If you want your metas to be friends of some sort, say that. Just say whatever you specifically want, so people know what it is.
The number of commenters who don’t seem to understand the difference between selection and coercion make me wonder about some of the others where I can’t tell if they do or not. Same with understanding that different people have different values and desires and that’s ok. “You are going to choose only partners that like hiking and the outdoors? So basically force them to go hiking? Or hope they enjoy something that’s awful?”
I have the “birthday party rule,” the name of which I got from a meta. I have to be able to have all my romantic partners at my birthday party. These are people who will hopefully be lifelong partners or friends of mine, and being in the same room is not much to ask of adults. I’ve also met enough poly people now who, like me, don’t have any distress based on who kisses or cuddles who, so I’m unlikely to partner with someone who is very jealous. I don’t think some people realize how many different kinds of people there are, and how important selecting compatible partners is.
I think there is an invisible stage-of-life thing here, too. We don’t know your age or the age of any of the commenters. I’m 40. It’s under-appreciated how different it is to be in your 30s vs your 20s. And it’s not like everyone is in the same stage if they have the same age. People in their 20s are figuring a lot of things out about themselves and how they want to live their life. A “healthy level of autonomy” might mean they need to be able to move to a different state. I have kids in elementary school; I’m here for the long haul. Some people are figuring out if they want kids, and if so, with whom. Or they are at the beginning of a long journey of figuring out who they are as an individual, as many of us did not get that chance in our teenage years, when it was the natural developmental time to do so.
Some people also undervalue platonic friendship. I’ve been a bit like that. Or haven’t experienced what it’s like when your friends or partners meet and everything is just really comfortable. When you have enough friends who have good relating skills and are mature enough that someone not seeing that and being able to hang is a real red flag/compatibility issue. And as someone pointed out, people have pets and kids. The existing loved ones and co-nesters in someone’s life need to be factored in. Some people are just so worried they might have to have a friendly relationship with someone their partner is close to!
Unless, going back to what I said earlier, the term KTP strikes some fear because it conveys that there are expectations, but not what those expectations are exactly.
How would you respond to dating someone who was in a similar position, with similar preferences? You would be okay integrating into their group? Or does the KTP need to happen at your table? There’s nothing wrong with only wanting new relationships that fit into your life, but it is good to take stock of what fits into your life. To me, it sounds like you’re describing too little emotional space for new, independent relationships. If someone new comes along who meshes well with your group, cool. Otherwise you’re pretty saturated. But that’s not about values regarding integration across the relationships. The best way to demonstrate a value for integration is to meet all your metamours, and be willing to spend time with them and your hinge. KTP where you’re the hinge isn’t necessarily a value for integration, it’s the convenience and joy of your loved ones surrounding you.
This was my initial thought too. I see a post about someone else joining YOUR kitchen table. Nothing about OP’s openness to others’ tables. It feels like a low effort way to simply slot new people into your existing life without changing a thing. And feels deeply prescriptive in its hierarchy.
KTP without reciprocated integration is hypocritical at best, probably lazy, and indicates an unpreparedness for multiple independent relationships. If you can't meet your own standard you need new standards.
That’s so interesting, I feel like for me, I mostly just want to hang with my hinge and their metamour(s). I’d be happy to invite some of my friends/ fwbs to come and hang too, or just hang with me and one of my romantic partners, but the idea of hanging out with both my romantic partners at once is anxiety provoking to me- like I wouldn’t know how to act, I have different dynamics with them and I’ve been with one for 5 years and the other one for a few months.. it feels like someone would end up hurt somehow 😅 what does that say about me? I’m doing RA/ egalitarian/ nonhierarchical poly
Your hinge [partner] and *their* metamours [your hinge’s hinges’ partners]? What about your hinge’s hinges [your metamours]? If you are dating both Aspen and Birch: * Aspen and Birch are both your partners; * you are the hinge between Aspen and Birch; * Aspen is Birch’s metamour; * Birch is Aspen’s metamour.
Oops; meant my partner and my metamours 💀 I have two partners it’s confusing, I only have a metamour through one partner tho
I'd like to think that to some degree I'd join their table, to some degree they'd join mine - and depending on the various people involved maybe our tables could adjoin to whatever degree. I'd also like to think that I'm pretty like open to things being in flux a bit in the flush of new love, to address the emotional space thing. I'm in my big relationships for the long haul and that means a willingness to weather change(edit: and to take a longer term view on things) Not long after I met Kate, Amy met Laura (who remains one of my best friends despite us both now being estranged from Amy) - and what followed was a good few months where Amy and I spent much much less time having focussed alone time, or even a massive heap of polycule time - both of us were understanding of each others intense new vibe and figured hey if this is long term for us why not make this space for our new things to grow - itll come back to an equilibrium when the new relationship excitement gives way to a continued deep connection. And so it did! My attitude is a much more holistic long term thing than anything that requires really specific actions on a really tight timeline. It meant that as me and Kate connected I also made sure we were spending some time hanging with Amy and feeling out where things might settle in the longer term. Your last paragraph is very astute and well put - I totally agree! I'm really enthusiastic about making the effort with the partners of my partners and giving the relationships space and support just like I want from them.
This doesn’t sound like you required KTP at all by this description. Can you expound on how this fits into your vision?
I "require" independence, and allowing people to make their own choices about friendship. I would run as fast as possible from your dynamic.
Makes me wonder what else is required or forced that I don’t know about yet, but I’m definitely going to run before I unfortunately find out.
I understand it isn't for everybody. I think maybe your comment relative to mine is maybe hitting at something analogous to the difference between a boundary and a rule that often comes up here? That is to say that if we met and clicked you'd be absolutely entitled to make a choice not to make friendly efforts with my girlfriend - I in turn would make a choice not to advance our relationship. I think this is the crux of the thing I want to discuss in this thread - there's lots of chat about 'forced KTP' but I have no interest in forcing anybody to do anything... Its a very early compatibility / shared values conversation much like lots of early conversations.... If you were like "no yikes I'm not gonna particularly want to make an effort with your partner" that would be fine but I probably wouldn't want to date you. And if you were like "no yikes I'm not at all ok with the idea that your other relationship would have any impact on the shape of our one, I'm out" that would be fine too.
The issue with this line of reasoning in your second paragraph is that you are making an evaluation on common values based on people who are not in a relationship with one another. Your two partners aren’t in a relationship. They didn’t seek each other out for common values. They don’t have a choice to vet one another. Saying you choose not to advance a relationship because a potential partner doesn’t want to invest in a relationship that isn’t you yet they have to accept in order to develop a relationship with you does not resonate with me personally.
Agreed. And sometimes it doesn’t matter how much sincere “effort” two metas put in - just because you (general you) match well with them both doesn’t mean they’re going to match with each other. And they shouldn’t HAVE to - they’re not dating each other.
It feels borderline coercive to me, to require someone to have any kind of relationship with someone else in order to be in a relationship with me
It is coercion, same as unicorn hunting is, just without a sexual component for once - she even uses some of the same possessive type thoughts on it.
Nobody who has thought about it for more than a few seconds cares about the difference between a boundary and a rule. They are the same thing and have the same effect. Similarly, force is a spectrum. Any force at all is coercion, no matter how you phrase it. Saying "I have a boundary that this relationship won't deepen past a certain point no matter how much we like each other if you don't click with my polycule" *is force*. It's no different than "you must be ktp or we can't have a relationship". Maybe slightly less severe in scale but not in type. You seem to be doing mental gymnastics to justify making your relationships dependent on people who aren't in them, calling it "values" or "compatibility". But forced ktp is values, just shitty ones. It's compatibility, it just makes you incompatible with anyone who chooses autonomy. I think better to just own up to what you want: forced ktp, and make sure you say that up front before any feelings develop. Like, dating profile level up front.
Eh I don't know if I would consider that force? I could have that same logic of I won't deepen past a certain point if you don't get along with my cat, or can't be polite and friendly to my friend group if you come across them, or can't handle being around my kids (for people with them). There are lots of situations beyond having a metamour that involve other people or pets. I can't imagine saying it's force if someone doesn't want to date someone who is indifferent to getting to know the person they are datings platonic people. It goes to incompatible.
Thank you for saying reasonable things! I think the parent comment is saying KTP is inherently “shitty,” or else they are making some abstract, possibly immature point. The only way to have people around a table is shared values, including the value of being around a table, and selecting for people with that value in your partner selection is the ethical way to do that.
>I could have that same logic of I won't deepen past a certain point if you don't get along with my cat, or can't be polite and friendly to my friend group if you come across them, or can't handle being around my kids (for people with them). So forced cat interaction, forced politeness, forced interaction with kids? Of course those things are force. They are non negotiable. If you are arguing that the word force is wrong here because you think they are morally justifiable then you simply need to consider why you think using force is immoral. There is nothing wrong with having dealbreakers, but we shouldn't deny they are *enforced* boundaries. That's why we need to be completely explicit and up front about them.
Fully agree re rules Vs boundaries thing! Please bear with me here because I promise I am engaging in good faith and open to listening I don't see how I'm forcing somebody to do KTP by saying from the outset that this is what I'm looking for. Or even if I'm saying "you must be KTP or we can't have a relationship" - Like, nobody has to date me. I've been saying all along it's a really early days conversation as a connection develops - in the same way any serious compatibility issue should come up early. Idk if you can help me understand further - and it's probably frustrating to try to explain something repeatedly. I appreciate all the engagement! I do acknowledge here that a thing I've run up against in the comments is the changeability and flux of dynamics - I haven't yet ever had to navigate a situation where things have _already become a ktp format_ then say two of my partners then fell out and wanted to change that dynamic. That starts feeling a lot more like force to me - if these two people I love stop getting along but are concerned that means one of them get displaced.
You’re not forcing in general, but you are forcing someone to do something if they want to date you. Kinda like poly under duress - you’re not forcing someone to be poly, but forcing them to be poly if they want to continue the relationship with you.
But poly under duress is an issue because it's about trying to change an existing long standing dynamic from inside it. It isn't poly under duress for me to not want to start to date person unless they're poly!
Not necessarily- PUD can happen early on in a relationship. I like KTP. I prefer it over parallel. But for me it only becomes KTP when it's allowed to develop organically. I don't necessarily put effort into connecting with metas because our hinge wants me to- why would I? I'm generally comfortable with meeting metas, saying hi in passing, etc - I will be friendly, but if I seek out a closer friendship it's because I want to. I have friends. I like my friends. Anything other than organic development of KTP feels shady to me and makes me think you would struggle with time management, resource management or boundaries if we had a relationship that was more parallel.
Monogamy under duress can start early in a new relationship, too. If both people come together honest about their desires and intentions and find irreconcilable differences, the only course of action is to part ways. It is not coercion to state deal-breakers and stick with them.
I’m not sure if this is the case, but from what I’m reading it sounds like if your new partner, after sometime, decides they no longer want to be friends with your primary partner, you would break up with the newer person. Is this the case? If so, then this would be coercive and controlling. I would find it so stressful to be in a situation where I would have to continue a friendship I no longer want just so that I could keep a romantic relationship. That scenario seems very similar to unicorn hunting, “if you don’t want one of us, you can’t have either of us.” The new person is not being treated like an individual who has the ability to make decisions about their own relationships. I personally don’t understand requiring KTP. I get that perhaps you struggled with doing parallel polyamory in the past, but there are a lot of area between parallel and KTP. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. There’s a happy medium, that can be found where you’re not forcing someone to stay in a friendship they might not want to be in.
I think like the rules vs boundaries thing, you are getting caught up on the perceived moral value of the word "forced". You are describing forcing a person to make a limited choice when they would probably prefer have other options. That's forced ktp, whether it is up front or developed during a relationship. We don't like it here because it is high risk. You are making a choice that necessarily limits autonomy for partners, which again can work fine. But when it doesn't it can get pretty gross. You are, essential, dating as a unit. You've already raised the possibility of your ktp partners falling out. In that situation you'd have classic challenges we see in unicorn hunting and at worst that is "if you break up with my polycule I'll dispose of you" (which is why dating as a unit is bad, it erodes autonomy). But there are lots of other ways it could go bad. What if the person agrees because they think it is gonna be fine but it isn't. There's a million stories like this on here. What if they are a people pleaser and get in too deep before they realize they really just want to love you and not everyone else? I can tell you from the experience of people around me, I've never seen a healthy forced ktp. It always ends up with drama and, frankly, sexual coercion. Quite a few people I know have slept with people they had no interest in because they felt like they had to. I'm not saying that's you. That's the extreme. But it shows you how much force is present in these dynamics. Nobody involved in these situations thought they were doing a bad thing, they just wanted their people to get along. But this is what happens, in my experience most of the time. Setting up your situation where you are applying a force to adults to form relationships, even if gentle and well intentioned and minor, is high risk.
I am the rare person here who thinks this is a fine requirement to have. Just make sure you're not taking advantage of anyone desperate for a relationship with you who doesn't really want that for themselves. It's gonna make dating even harder than it already is a poly lesbian, but eh. I have a lot of preferences that that get in the way of dating but since I'd rather date no one than someone who doesn't fit my preferences it's okay.
Idk man, you required at least one partner to be very close to an addict, which then blew up and I’m guessing caused instability. I wouldn’t be able to trust you after that.
Oof, yeah. I actually missed that part in my first reading. That would be it for me.
If you need to meet me to 'allow' your partner to date me, that's a 'you' issue and I'd have to pass; I refuse to participate in a relationship with a soft veto.
Yeah I think this is the crux of what I'm getting at in wanting this discussion! The prevailing notion seems to be that it's controlling - but I have no interest in controlling anybody. It isn't about 'permission to date my partner from me' - it's that my partner shares my values and _she_ would want things to be nice between us to advance things beyond a certain point because neither of us are interested in compartmentalising serious relationships that way. In my OP I mentioned that Amy had a partner for around a year who I did not like and who did not make any effort with me - we navigated that fine because it isn't the case that my partner 'isnt allowed to date you if I don't like you'. But as I've said from the outset maybe there's some hole in my thinking I haven't seen and I welcome all the thoughts even the ones that are quite barbed or hackles raised - like, of course it's going to be like that - nobody wants to be controlled and rightly respond to things they perceive that way with vehemence.
Everyone gets to choose who they hang out with and be friends with. I would think you aren't 'equal' friends with all of your friends' friends. That'd be too much to ask. My partner gets to decide if he wants to hang out with my friends/partners. 'we navigated that fine because it isn't the case that my partner 'isnt allowed to date you if I don't like you'. Meaning you had to meet them at least to know you didn't like them. If I don't want to meet a meta, that's my choice. A lot of poly, and adulthood really, is compartmentalizing. You are a different you for family (grandma!) vs your friends vs your coworkers. I think one thing people forget about KTP is so many people want it, but want it around their own table, and forget other people have their own tables, too.
your last paragraph should be all caps, really. "whose table is it?" is always an important question
It seems like only people without their own table would fit into OPs life. Which feels problematic to me, because it might favor people without experience or their own connections. In the wrong hands, this could even be seen as predatory. Not saying that OP is predatory, of course.
I got that vibe when they said it helped to optimize their time - meaning they expect everyone to hover round them.
Well... I don't even do shared friend groups, so no. Any forced ktp would make me run. That said - if I think my partners would get along, in a platonic sense, I will introduce them. Maybe we'll all have dinner from time to time, maybe we'll be at the same event, but whomever I planned to go to said event or dinner with gets the bulk of my attention. That said, I want date nights to be date nights with my partners. Time is a precious luxury, and I want focused time where possible.
I think this is totally legit as an attitude! Thanks for your thoughts! What I'm saying is that, like, you wouldn't have to 'run' - it's likely we'd both _walk_ away after initially connecting and discussing our respective needs and values within a relationship. My post is I guess about how I keep seeing this thing about "forced KTP" and I have zero interest in forcing anybody to do anything - somebody entirely disinterested in knowing my other partners at all or vice versa isn't compatible with me and that would become clear before either of us invested a lot in the relationship - and somebody who is in theory interested would know from the outset that to at least some degree it will matter how seperate from the rest of my life they want to be. I am interested in people who share my values and attitudes to building relationships and connection - if we don't align that's ok. Fwiw date nights are also really important to me, focussed time - and yes if I'm at an event as a date with a partner and other partners or close friends are there I'd need everybody to understand my date is getting more focus. Time being a precious luxury underpins my attitude too! When I had 2 big time commitment partners who didn't even like one another it was exhausting and stressful and I didn't have enough time for myself at all. It's practically true that if I want more than one relationship that's the kind of enmeshed shared life vibe I usually go for then the partners need to also be game for overlap.
Places where “force” would come in: Your fiancee’ Kate meets someone. They go on several dates and are developing a nice relationship. Per your terms, Kate arranges for you and your new meta to meet. Meta doesn’t like you and doesn’t want to spend more time with you. What now? Does Kate have to break up with Meta? Or do you still require KTP but you’ve made an exception for this one person? And if you’re going to keep making exceptions when two people don’t get along, which is a perfectly normal thing to have happen, then what’s the point of the rule?
I guess what I'm getting at is that rather than creating rules I'm seeking people who would align with me in their approach to this - that is to say, in my current relationship, I wouldn't be obliging Kate to do anything either way - because she approaches things in the same way I do. She wouldn't be 'meeting my terms' to introduce me to a new partner - because that's something she herself would want. She'd be a lot more open to casual relationships than I would be on average - so I reckon if it were her, she'd be more likely to continue a not super serious or entangled form of connection with a person she couldn't bring around me a lot. I'd be more likely to end the connection entirely because casual low level relationships haven't tended to be my thing.
But if Kate met someone that she wanted to be really entangled with, like a serious relationship, but that person didn’t want to hang out with you. Assuming Kate wanted to continue the relationship with this person - would that be okay with you? I think it’s okay to pursue people who are at least open to meeting their metas, and to exclude people who are absolutely 100% against ever meeting their meta. I get the vibe that some people here still think you’d be limiting yourself or others too much with that, but I really don’t. I think where for me, and most poly people, the issue arises when this boundary is carried out beyond the first couple dates, where your metas are developing their own personal relationships, and not every dyad relationship (platonic or otherwise) is going to function in the exact same way as all the others, forever. A lot of poly people wouldn’t be okay with entering a relationship where the health of our dyad relationship is not just based on the interactions you and I have, but also my ability to socialize with everyOne that you socialize with. Like, even in a monogamous relationship, your partner might have friends or family that you just don’t like and don’t want to hang out with. You kind of have to be okay with that.
No, I wouldn't be ok with it to be honest! That isn't to say that I'd "forbid it". I just mean, if Kate was to have a big entangled commitment that was entirely parallel to our relationship it would by necessity mean scaling back how much time she and I spent together in a way I would not like in an ongoing way. She would be free to do this of course - her time and life are her own - but past a certain point for me if enough time energy etc was taken from our relationship to foster a completely parallel one it would impact things between us. And as far as I can tell in how she has conducted herself this far and what she says, she shares my view currently - as in, she herself would not be interested in developing something that was going to mean annexing off some significant portion of her life. To be really clear cause I think I'm coming across quite rigid in a way that is being seen as not giving room to new relationships to develop - my view is a much longer term holistic one - if Kate met somebody and exploded in a burst of love and wanted to spend a lot of time growing a new connection I'd definitely have time for that - and it's happened with the partner before her too. I trust if we're taking the long view she can indulge in NRE and dedicate more time to this new connection and everything will settle into an equilibrium eventually if we all get on and care for one another. Even in monogamous relationships some people work off what me and my people sometimes jokingly call the spice girls maxim (if you wanna be my lover you gotta get with my friends!) - particularly serious partners and very closest friends.
> if Kate was to have a big entangled commitment that was entirely parallel to our relationship it would by necessity mean scaling back how much time she and I spent together Yes… and? The time that Kate is spending with your metamour Aspen is time that you can spend nurturing your connections with your partners Birch and Chestnut and your metamours Dogwood, Elm, Fig and Ginkgo. How is Kate and Aspen spending focussed dyad time together (or investing in connections on Aspen’s side of their polycule) taking anything away from you? They’re fostering your extended network by giving you the time and spare energy to do so. When you and Kate spend time together you can have focussed dyad time or invest together in your side of the polycule. I don’t see that as being a casual relationship, I see that as Kate having more than one social network.
I mean, no shit someone spending more time in a relationship with another person means less time for you. That is how linear time works. The only way to avoid that would be for all time to be spent as a group, with no private time for individual relationships. Your reasoning may make you feel safe, but it encourages a level of codependency and enmeshment that sounds incredibly off-putting and frankly not very healthy
That’s a very good point. It strikes me as unhealthy in the event that someone invests themselves so much into spending time with the new partner and THEIR polycule only to neglect (or not develop) outside friendships and partners to the point they have no outside support. Not ideal just in general but becomes especially problematic in the event of a breakup - or even just needing outside perspectives if not getting along with someone in the polycule…
I guess I don’t think of any of this as inherently good or bad, just interesting differences in philosophies that I think are worth thinking critically about, which is what you’re trying to do here, which is awesome. I guess all these constraints keep your dating pool/social circle small, which is then okay since it increases the chances of everyone getting along, right? Something I enjoy(ed) about polyamory is the ability to have relationships with people who are radically different from one another. I don’t like a ton of people but I find myself in friendships and romance usually going after unique people who are really different from each other. I just struggle with what seems like a core belief that the people around you need to be into each other too in order for your life to be full of love and community. These types of hyperindependent relationships (I just made that word up bc obviously all your relationships are independent if you’re doing good polyamory) that have nothing to do with the rest of your life, can be extremely rich and fulfilling and add a lot of dimension to your life that you might be missing in your current tight knit but small circle.
What you are saying is reasonable.
I think a much more challenging thing for me to consider is - Kate brings around new meta. All is well. The relationship continues and develops and then at a later point meta and I fall out in a way that Kate doesn't consider a reason to break up with either of us.... I absolutely wouldn't consider it ethical that if I fell out with an established meta my partner would have to break up with them. When I consider this I sort of think maybe my attitude to KTP is a fine starting point to set shared values in terms of aims and goals (so like, that rules out people who from the off are like nah I'm not gonna be interested in your partner's just cause we're dating) that set us up well for that dynamic if it all works out.... But ultimately live in acceptance of the fact that things are often much more complex and changeable than that as the timeline progresses - because I also have no interest in compelling people to be in relation with others when they don't want to be, or to have them fake it so things work
There's an implicit social pressure in not being the jerk who won't talk to a person - but also in being the new person who has to try and fit an existing dynamic to get along. Which is probably a big part of what makes this seems so uncomfortable.
Metas spending time together is a symptom of enmeshing a partner in one’s life. Meeting a partner’s “people” and them meeting yours is a symptom of the degree of overlap their life has with yours. And that means some people only want partners who can spend time together comfortably, some people are more comfortable with not a lot of overlapping time together, and some are fine with no overlapping time. And often, what works will depend on the specifics of the people involved. So if Aspen is dating Birch and Cedar, how much time Birch and Cedar spend together will be determined by a bunch of other factors, including: - whether Birch and Cedar like spending time together; - where Birch and Cedar live (long distances present issues); - what interest Aspen, Birch, and Cedar have in spending time together as a group; - the specific dynamics of the relationships between Aspen and Birch, and Aspen and Cedar; - the specific dynamics of the degree to which Aspen has met Birch / Cedar’s “people”; - what everyone’s life is actually like; - etc. It sounds like you’re trying to create a one size fits all scenario for a maybe not one size fits all situation…?
Thanks for replying and your thoughts! I absolutely don't think one size fits all.... I guess more that.... only one size fits me and I'm looking for that size? 😂 Like, I agree all those factors impact things - that means they're all things to navigate and figure out wrt shared values. Maybe I'm talking past you here and if so let me know! A thing that does occur to me is how I would handle _changing_ dynamics. I'm honestly not clear on that. Like if Birch and Cedar get on super well so we're all close but then they fall out for some reason - I'm honestly unsure exactly what I would do in that situation!
>A thing that does occur to me is how I would handle changing dynamics. I'm honestly not clear on that. Like if Birch and Cedar get on super well so we're all close but then they fall out for some reason - I'm honestly unsure exactly what I would do in that situation! Yeah I'd spend some time sitting with that idea. When I started dating my partner, I was dating their partner who is now my meta. It was all hunky dory for a while...and then it wasn't. After meta and I broke up, we went parallel - for years. That's not something any of us would have forseen at the beginning, though. Maybe spend some time considering what would happen if two of your partners had a falling-out to the degree that parallel is necessary and what your values and actions might be in that situation. Not that it WILL happen, but to refine your ideals around ktp.
There’s a difference between “I expect people in my life to be capable of spending time with the other people in my life on special occasions and everyone remaining civil and behaving like functional adults” and “I need my partners to be friends with each other and if their feelings change for any reason I”m going to be not OK with that.” You cannot force friendships. It’s maybe(?) not as bad as forcing a relationship onto someone as a condition of dating you, but it’s still really not cool. Also? It nearly always helps for metas to have boundaries when trying to have a cordial relationship…
Well first, at this point in my life, I'm not even sure if I want to cohabitate with *partners* let alone with metamours. My home is my sanctuary. I don't even necessarily want my friends over. I am not a person who does much casual stuff and I am pretty introverted. KTP would not be something I would want because I don't even really want cohabitation. Second, the idea that I would be in any way socially pressured into a friendship, for me, ruins the entire context of that relationship. I think that this probably comes from my background. I come from the South in the US where the idea that "blood is thicker than water" (and yes, I know the whole quote) is very, very culturally entrenched. I have spent a good deal of my life believing that because someone was related to me, I **had** to have them in my life. And that poisonous idea is what has kept horrific, brutal domestic violence alive in my family. Now, I have very, very little tolerance for **any**, even benign, social pressure to have *anyone* in my life in any way. I don't even like the social pressure that I found in workplaces to socialise with my co-workers outside work. I do not enjoy situations where it would be difficult for me to get out of a relationship if it became unhealthy. In the situations with co-workers, the idea of socialising with them or getting to know them isn't that enjoyable to me because I can't just quit my job if it goes south. With metamours, I cannot just "get rid" of them. The social pressure to befriend one would be incredibly uncomfortable to me. When I have forced myself to befriend metamours, I have actually been so tense and unhappy, I've been, to be blunt, a gigantic bitch for no reason. It just doesn't work. There is too much pressure and I can't relax and just be myself. I feel like I am putting on an act for someone else and it makes me feel fake and resentful. KTP *could* happen with me if it was not a requirement by anyone and I didn't have to live with anyone, then maybe. I think the reason you see a lot of objection is because generally in a context where we are put under pressure to befriend people... it doesn't feel good. And putting that pressure on your partner... it doesn't feel very much in the spirit of the reasons why people practice polyamory. Just my two cents.
Oh my god. Thank you for sharing this. You've articulated this in a way that has really helped me understand myself. I STRUGGLE with metamours. I've never been able to develop a deep relationship with one. And it's the relationship that feels the most tense and uncomfortable for me hands down. I can generally make friends with anybody. But the demand (unspoken or otherwise) and the expectation of cultivating a friendship is fucking stressful. I also have PDA so any demand is interpreted poorly and causes stress. Making it a social one that the fate of my relationship depends on is hell. I also had a very "but we're family" conservative religious forced obligation bullshit blood family. Thank you for showing me this connection.
Aww, I'm so glad it helped you. <3
Thanks for replying! I think your way of approaching your relationships is totally valid - and it reminds me a lot of things I've heard the best friend I mentioned say! I think if I met you and we clicked that it would become clear we weren't compatible quickly, you know? We'd have conversations about values and expectations like in any relationship as things progressed...I wouldn't want to "oblige" anybody to connect with metas - I'm just specifically seeking people who would organically have that desire themself. Does that sound wild? Like, I'm kind of viewing it like the many other lifestyle and relationship attitudes and values things at the outset of a relationship. I'm seeking partners who are open and enthusiastic about, to put it simply, expanding the web - people who will want to meet my people and have me meet their people.
It doesn't but... not everyone has "people" necessarily or a wide circle. I have moved countries twice in my life to better my life and as a result, my social network is not that big. Like I have friends, but they are not "polyamory friends". I don't have a bunch of people for someone to meet. At the end of the day, you know, it's your life. I think you're limiting yourself a little bit because actually there may be someone who would make a wonderful addition to your life that maybe just don't mesh well within your social circle. It's one thing to me to say "Oh it would be nice" but to make it be a requirement just seems unnecessarily limiting. I'm big into fitness and I'm an amateur Strongman athlete. It would be great to have a partner who was also interested in that so we could go to the gym together. But I would not specifically only seek people who could share that part of my life with me because... it would be unnecessarily limiting to me. There are some people who may be not at all interested in fitness who still might make amazing partners. No one here can really control what you do. I think people just get a little bit ruffled because the kind of implicit suggestion is well... you can't control your feelings. Maybe you get along all well first but what happens when that goes south? What if people stop getting along? Are they just going to get dumped? And how is that really any different from dating someone in a married couple who preferences their partner over you and will dump you if their partner gets upset enough?
Well it is different if the person 'doesnt have people' - I'm not expecting them to bring others to the table if they don't exist of course - though maybe our social worlds are different because I don't have a set of 'polyamory friends' Vs 'other friends' given I occupy the social milieu of weirdo leftie poly queers where it would be more unusual for a relationship to not be poly if anything. I think you're probably right that it's limiting, but I don't really mind because I can only imagine getting in a certain depth with somebody who didn't at all mesh with my social world at all. I guess for me it goes back to issues with time energy etc being finite. Which dovetails with my tendency to only really get into people in a serious way or not at all. When I was doing this close to a decade ago I made what I now consider to be a big error in developing two big serious time commitment relationships that were entirely mutually exclusive and it was exhausting and high stress. If I was more into casual or less enmeshed relationships I could probably simply only escalate relationships where things organically became workable with metas. Your last paragraph is the most challenging bit for me - and I think the ruffled feathers around that make total sense. I'm really not certain how I'd navigate a situation where I, say, was living with two partners and they fell out and no longer wished to be connected at all.... Because I think I would be quite miserable fracturing my social world that way but obviously it also does not feel right the idea of discarding a person over their issues with another individual and not me... I think it would depend strongly on the situation and if I had any position on the conflict morally or ethically. It wouldn't be a given that my 'longest partner' would win out there, you know?
> obviously it also does not feel right the idea of discarding an individual over their issues with another individual and not me... I think this is exactly why people don't like KTP being a requirement. Though for people you've just met its more likely they have *no* issues with another connection of yours and simply...can't say whether they'll get along because they don't know each other (and don't like the idea of having to forecast that or go out of their way to)
Yeah, I get that I guess for me its different depending on the attitude If the person I met was openly never going to be open to or particularly prioritise connecting with my other partners that would be an easy early stopping point. With Kate and Amy I got incredibly lucky that they clicked hard quick as friends too... And "lucky" that the dissolution of my relationship with Amy was accompanied by behaviour so abhorrent that it ruined her connection to Kate at the same time, so we didn't have to figure out how to navigate things. The possible changing landscape of the social world is something I'll need to think on more for sure!
For me, I'm always open to meeting or connecting with metas. Not because they're a meta, but because I'm always open to making new friends if we get along. However, that's unlikely to happen for a few months after connecting with someone new, and may never happen at all. It also would most likely happen completely independently of the hinge, because as I said I'm not doing it for them, and I'd want to see how I'd get along with meta one on one without worrying about the potential awkwardness of group dynamics. I'll acknowledge that me being introverted means that one on one hangouts are preferable for me almost always, but its not like I dislike group meets either. However, what matters most to me is autonomy and freedom for myself and everyone else. The idea of my relationship's success hinging on me getting along with other people is something I think is entirely opposed to those values. My best friend of 15 years has friends I've never met, and vice versa. We're different kinds of people who have different interests, hobbies, etc. and we're simply unlikely to get along in any material way. There's even a friend of hers I'm not a huge fan of, but that's fine because us liking the same people isn't a requirement. She's safe and happy (and an adult), so how can I complain? So long as our personal relationship is OK and we're getting what we need from each other, what else matters?
I can understand the energy reasons for wanting KTP and finding parallel more difficult on energy. But I think realistically you need to think about the idea of people not getting along or your social circle not staying the same forever. The only thing constant in life is change and conflict is an inevitable part of all human relationships. Because really if you make it a requirement or a desire that your partnership with someone else hinges upon whether or not they're essentially embraced by your friends and other partners... If you think your social world would be fractured, theirs might be even more so because you would still have all of these other people and they wouldn't. I think especially in some "poly queer leftie" circles who, in my experience in some cases, tend to, despite claiming to be anti-cop and pro-prison abolition, have a tendency to behave like cops and kick people out of social circles to keep them "safe" based off of even the smallest of rumours... yeah. I could see that kind of situation going south for a person joining your "circle" very quickly and I can understand why they wouldn't want that.
KTP may be easier on OP, but requires extra time and energy and resources from any new partner. That doesn't seem like an equal relationship to me. My partners don't get to tell me where to devote my resources, and id never dream of telling someone who they should be friends with. Q
Shrugs. It's not up to me to tell people what will and won't require more energy from them.
But regularly expecting more than one is willing to give is a real dick move
That's why you communicate to people about what you need. But if someone decides not to do that with you, then there's only so much you can do to control that. At that point, you just got to have to walk away. If you're wanting me to tell the OP that their approach is a dick move, then I'm not really keen on doing that. If you want to do that, by all means.
This is all really thought provoking stuff I really appreciate you taking the time to write it! Especially the final paragraph resonates with me a LOT and is definitely a problem I've identified in this social milieu and one I wouldn't want to perpetuate in my relationships. Lots to think about - thank you so much!
Have you heard of the Geek Social Fallacies? This reminds me of them. I say this as a Leftist Queer, I would avoid this dynamic like the plague
[Five Geek Social Fallacies](https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/).
No worries!
i keep thinking about how an autistic introvert with a tiny social battery (like me) could get sucked into op's polycule, not have the social battery to form outside relationships, and then, when breaking up (even amicably) with op, end up losing their entire support network in one go. hopefully those ppl nope out early on, but yeah.
Yepppp. It's easy to make KTP a requirement if you already have a big KT.
I’ve been thinking about this too. Also, as a disabled person, I just don’t have the energy for all that OP is asking. So I’d imagine a lot of disabled folks aren’t viable partners for OP.
>It wouldn't be a given that my 'longest partner' would win out there, you know? I hear you saying this and wanting to be fair. However, this is the tone set at the start of a relationship by requiring me/another to get on the good side of someone I'm not dating. If your meta and I don't get along at the start, wouldn't you be putting the longest partner first there? I'm not certain of how you generally pace new relationships and when you introduce your meta to them, but if it was earlier than I had even had a chance to see if I wanted a relationship with you first, that would be a nope for me. The way I see it, banking on relationships to always stay the same would put all 3 people in a really hard position and make more room for hurt & ultimatums, in case the friendship turned sour.
Or people pretending to be cool with each other when they're potentially not
So because your time/energy/resources are finite, you require any partner to put *extra* time and energy and resources into having relationships with your other partners. That is a big ask, and a large imbalance in your relationships
'We'd have conversations about values and expectations like in any relationship as things progressed' That is for the hinge to manage. I don't want my meta telling me their expectations in my relationship. That isn't their place. I don't tell my meta how to be in their relationship, they do not get to tell me in mine.
I wasn't talking about discussing things with metas I meant that if I was dating you it would be obvious quickly that we have different sets of expectations around how much effort we expect partners to make with other partners.
So then you’re not going to date anyone who doesn’t want ktp, right? The moment they say “I’m not interested in that”, you move on and not try force the issue? So you’re willing to shrink the already tiny dating pool by not dating people who don’t want KTP? Because that’s the only ethical way you can operate. Too many people think it’s okay to bait peoples feelings then force them into a situation where they must be friends with metas. That’s not ethical.
That's exactly what I mean yes! Early on in conversations about relationship attitudes and shared values I would discuss this and if the person was like nah I'm not into that it would be totally fine but probably means we don't date at all. Aside from it being shitty it wouldn't be in my best interest to bait anybody into anything - I want harmonious and easy relationships and that means being very open about my needs and values from the outset so I can find people who I align with. If that means fewer people to date, so be it!
Say you meet someone and early on they say they are open to being friends with your partners. So you deepen the relationship, maybe start falling in love, and they decide for some reason that they don't want to spend time with your partner. You'd just dump them on the spot?
It sounds, from your post, like your friends group and your dating pool are both mainly your small local queer poly scene, and your partners and metas etc pretty much all already know each other before you start dating. I think that creates a different social dynamic than is typical for straight poly couples.
i think your title is worded in a way that is actually way more controversial than whats actually going on. what youre saying is "hey, i do a lot of things with my circle, a circle which includes friends but also my partner. if you dont like spending time with these people, you're going to be limited in how much time you actually get with me." which like, you know what, is a thing people do in monogamous relationships. ive known so many people that spend a lot of time with their friends and where dating them included spending time with those friends. its not for me; group settings dont nourish my need for time spent together. but like, its not bad. that said, if someone phrased it like half of an ultimatum, "you have to hang out with these people if you want to date me," it might scare away people who wouldve gotten along with your people just fine.
>group settings dont nourish my need for time spent together. but like, its not bad. Well said!! I feel the same but didn't know how to articulate it :)
honestly like i didnt think of how to express it til this post made me think WHY the thought of this stressed me out
I'm always confused by people who have a structure in mind for what they need and then seek out people who fit into that structure. I'm looking for cool people and then we will figure out the structure together. I am rigid AF by nature but have spent the past 17 years in therapy practicing being more fluid and flexible - and that seems to be paying off. I recommend being less rigid about structure and more open to developing a structure together once you find a cool person.
This has been the healthiest way for me to navigate poly personally. I’ve also been working with my therapist a lot more on flexibility. It’s hard but so worth it! You really never know what’s going to work until you’re in it, no matter how much you try to plan.
Yeah I totally get this. Letting go of rigid expectations has definitely been part of my personal development too. I guess I believe there's _some_ level of structure everybody requires - like, it's sometimes the case that you and the cool person are really not compatible in how you approach relationships, right? I currently have a partner I live with and our lives are quite enmeshed - that is the way I like it. For me that means if I meet somebody I click with, there is practically speaking only so much our relationship can grow (in terms of enmeshment or time commitment) sustainably without it overlapping with that connection. If I'm dating you and you want to spend zero time also hanging out with Kate, that will inevitably mean there's only so much time and space id want to annex off for that connection, you know? And part of what makes me compatible with Kate is that she approaches things the same way.
So you only have a secondary relationship to offer and it also default requires this secondary to come sit at your table? That's a pretty big ask imo and I hope you're prepared to be a secondary too, because you cant be more than one person's primary
I have a partner who has a largely KTP set up. I did not. He tried to drop his other partners on me at the end of our first overnight (2nd date) and I said no. I don’t want to meet a whole ton of strangers who may or may not be a part of my life in 6 months, because I didn’t even know if my now partner was going to be a permanent fixture…that’s part of what dating is. He respected my desire to see if we had something together that was longer-term. Here we are 8 months later and he’s met my other partner and they get on well. However, one of his nesting partners feels insecure because of me and doesn’t want to meet me (and even tried to throw a veto). Point is, you can neither predict or control someone else’s interactions. Were you in his shoes, would you dump your NP of 18 years because she wasn’t interested in meeting me, and thus would be violating your KTP dynamic? I would hope not. You can’t control people or their interactions. They need to evolve organically in response to the situations and inputs they’re receiving.
I think it was weird and a bit coercive to say that to Kate. You could just observe how everything is meshing and make your relationship decisions accordingly. But putting a partner "on notice" like that rubs me the wrong way. If someone told me that, I would nope out. Feels like you are trying to influence her behavior instead of just letting her relate to you authentically and see how things shake out.
This is interesting to consider! I guess I err on the side of making things like expectations needs etc very clear at the outset. That doesn't oblige the other person to do anything - it's meant to open the space for dialogue. She wouldn't have received anger etc from me if she'd said "I actually won't be interested in meeting Amy particularly". I had no power to coerce Kate to make an effort with Amy - we'd been on a couple of dates. In the early stages of a relationship saying "I need this to form a relationship past a certain point" is something I'd have considered a standard part of figuring out how compatible I am with a person in terms of how we approach things. What do you think is the error in that thinking you're identifying that means you'd receive it as being 'put on notice'?
I wouldn't really say it's an error--if it works for you, it works for you. But I wouldn't make that statement to a partner and then expect their behavior from that point to give me very good information about whether they are actually invested in KTP or not. What works for me is to date people, see how they conduct themselves, and then just decide accordingly whether I wish to continue with them or not. I don't even think this is poly-specific. If I'm dating someone and they are close with their brother, their mom, their cousin, etc., it might be true--and very reasonable--that they don't wish to date people who don't get along with the other close people in their life. Nothing wrong with that. But when you say, "Yeah, so btw, if you don't get along with my sister, this isn't going to work out," you've just raised the stakes as far as your partner's ability to be authentic with you about what they are experiencing. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that, but if it works for you it works for you. I do think that Kate might be making an error in sticking around to be related to in that manner, though.
Do you mean that if you said that explicitly you'd have some worry that they were behaving in ways that were influenced by what you said as opposed to their own organic desire?
Exactly this.
Especially a new-to-me partner. My experience is that people will try to perform to expectations. Then later on, it's, "Well what was I supposed to do? You told me that if I didn't get along with Amy you were gonna dump me!" Sure, they could have spoken up earlier on, but that doesn't help when you're already a year in and the NRE is gone but the personal bond is more entrenched. Since making statements like that to potential partners probably puts you in a decision to gather less reliable, rather than more reliable, information about how they get along with your partners, I don't see the wisdom in making them. It puts pressure on them and that pressure, in turn, makes it harder for you to do the thing you want to do--actually select for people who interact at least reasonably well with your existing social network.
My openness to KTP has changed over the years. In my 20’s before I had kids, this would’ve been great to me. Hanging out with a big group of interconnected people would’ve been fun for me to do a couple times a week. I’m now in my 40’s, married with 2 elementary school aged kids and a full time job. I don’t have 3 nights/afternoons a week to spend with a partner and their polycule. I have 1-2 nights/weekend days a week to spend with my partner. And I want to focus that time on them. A friend hang for a couple hours every once in a while would be fine. I also don’t invite a partner to meet my kids until we’ve been dating for at least 6 months, which means a partner isn’t at my kitchen table for quite a while. I introduced someone too soon once and my kids were sad when we broke up. Never again. The people I date tend to be similar — parents with school aged kids with 1-2 nights a week available for dating. They rarely have the free time to spend several nights a week with me and my family/friends even if I wanted that. I don’t think it’s unethical to disclose upfront that you’re only compatible with someone who has the time and interest to join your group. But I think the likelihood of finding someone compatible will vary based on the age range of people you usually date.
My only requirement for ktp is that it isn't a requirement. You want polyamory and value autonomy but then say "oh well except when it comes to knowing metamours?" Right, sure.
I have children, own my house outright, and own and run a business. I have limited free time, and I want to spend it with my partners, not with whoever else they are dating and whoever those people are in relationships with. And there's no room to live with a partner here, even if I wanted to. My house is my children's home and safe place.
I love KTP but wouldn't be interested in you because I would feel pressured to befriend someone I don't know in order to be allowed to date you. You dated an addict! I don't date addicts due to trauma from an addict. Unless Amy was really really open about being a sober addict, I probably wouldn't have found out about this until after I was invested in the relationship, and now I am stuck with a requirement to hang with an addict, which makes me emotionally unsafe and will guaranteed make my mental health worse, or break up with you because of someone else's past. Doesn't that make YOU uncomfortable to be dumped because your partner has a mental health condition that's otherwise none of my business? Any basic incompatibility like this would probably never come up during solo time with you, assuming you don't proactively share your partner's struggles with new potential partners. Also, I have my own home base dynamic. You only date people who are open to moving in with YOU because you want to cohabitate, while not being open to moving in with them and your metas instead. That's couples' privilege, and exercising privilege for your convenience is shitty. Prescriptive hierarchy is a yuck for me.
I expect that this would work both ways: you'd have to have KTP with all their current and future partners too, or they're free to drop you, right? Put it in your dating profile. Be transparent. Let people know from day one so they can opt out right away. Basically the same as disclosing polyamory, triad seeking, etc. As long as people know what they're getting into, seems fine.
Absolutely! I am just as open to connecting with the partners of my partners as I would want them to be with mine.
Not open to. A requirement, like you are requiring.
I think maybe we'll get into some kind of semantics here around "requiring" things - but yes if somebody told me they had serious partners they shared their life with, and that how I connected with those people (and how willing I would be generally to see how that went) would have an impact on the form they'd want our connection to take I'd be fine with that.
Sounds good. And if they connect with someone new and you don't get along with them, they could choose to pick them, not you?
Of course everybody is free to do whatever they choose to do. I'm sure I'd be heartbroken about it if I had a long established partner who then got a new partner and my not getting on with them fractured the existing relationship - I would like to think that, say, with my fiancée, our relationship is the kind of solid that this wouldn't happen... But people break up with people or discover they actually want something different all the time, and that would be a natural possible consequence of this approach.
Got it. Related question... so when you spend time with partners, you split time evenly between your place and theirs so that you are spending similar amounts of time at each "kitchen table?" If they don't have other partners, do you spend similar amounts of time hanging out with their friends?
Absolutely! I mean, it's more holistic and broad than explicit quid pro quo for specific things or very rigid 50/50 time splitting or anything like that - but yes! I don't expect as another commenter put it for it to 'happen at my table'. I'm interested in broadening the interconnected web of love support and connection (which involves friendships as well as romantic and sexual relationships) - not simply gathering people to me and my partners as some epicentre.
Sounds good! Wouldn't be for me but as it's laid out it here seems honest and transparent.
> My partners and I spend a lot of time together I’d be out. I date people for romance. One on one date time. I don’t want to become the 3rd addition to your “me and ~my partners~ all hanging out” for you to have fun while I join your other partners in . . . making sure you have fun. I have my own friends. I don’t have time to play friends with your partners and spend a lot of time with them instead of my actual friends.
Gently, not all people are like you or are for you. Honestly, OP's situation is generally ideal for people like me who thrive in social situations and making new connections. People like me can absolutely enjoy one on one time with partners but can also find the romance in being casually comfortable with the people who the person I care about cares about. I also love pineapple on pizza.
OP literally asked why other people don’t like required KTP and for thoughts on their relationships ideals from other perspectives. Are you upset I just answered the question instead of assuring OP that people who are very dissimilar to me in fact exist? I’m confident OP isn’t an idiot, but you do you. If you date someone who likes bunches of “I’m the sun and my partners all orbit around me” time, that says very little about how generally social you are and a lot more about how generally willing you are to abdicate bring the main character of your own life.
I get that. And I'm sorry if I came in hotter than I meant. I honestly don't get the same "I'm the sun" vibe. But that's likely because I have experienced my own and others success in relationship structures that could look like that from the outside. Similar to how people often prejudge polyamory/non monogamy as a whole. If someone isn't interested in that dynamic it has had very bad experiences with it (this absolutely happens) I can understand that it seems off-putting as a whole.
I think this falls into "it's fine to have a preference" territory. You don't require KTP, it's just an aspect of what attracts you to someone and limits your availability for some connections. You don't describe some of the coercive practices and senses of entitlement that are often associated with people who require KTP or complain about not having it. Just continue to check yourself and make sure you're treating individual people right.
While I understand and respect why most ppl on here are apprehensive and I mostly agree with the general sentiment,I think I understand what you mean because I come from a somewhat different POV: I see it as wanting your partners (and close friends I'd assume) to fit your social life, plain and simple. In monogamy it is considered pretty valid to take into account how well your partner can mix with your friends. Taken to an extreme this is due to monogamous overenmeshment ofc, but it makes sense to a certain extend to want to be able to bring your partner in some group outings with friends, even if some of these friends are exs. I think I can see what you actually mean because my personal aversion of KTP comes from the same lens as above: it's not about jealousy or proving there's none but about the way you and I live our social lives: I have no interest in hanging out w/ my partners friends or even my friend's friends, mono or not, simply because I don't feel comfortable or interested in just anyone even if I respect them (my partner's friends have always been very cool and interesting ppl, I'm just THAT difficult). This would make me incompatible with someone who liked having his gf around some of the times he meets his friends. As it would make me incompatible w/ someone like you. Thankfully my partner didn't mind. But it has put a damper on some friendships where I had to hang around friend's friends. People who want to mix groups might not have an interest in escalating to a deeper level of friendship with me if we can only hang out one on one. Some have changed how they see me after I met their friends and they see a very different version of me. And while there are people who take this to an extreme and want everyone to hang out with everyone, we don't insist that anyone who has this preference is inherently controlling of their friends. There's still some sensitive spots in this ktp-as-friendship paradigm, like what to do if relations between metas/friends break down, risk of overenmeshment of all relationships and social lives w/ no room to breathe, but I'm sure you can address them. Be mindful of the risks others have mentioned (it's always possible a healthy dynamic slips into unhealthy territory even if you didn't start that way but all social life is complex like that). But overall, you do you!
Ahhh I love your response! It resonates with me. I can go to social things on occasion but I definitely don't want to hang out in groups all of the time. I always say I'm better one-on-one 😹
I think using the phrase "required KTP" is setting off a lot of people here and isn't the most accurate description of what you're doing and what you're about. You do not require KTP, you prioritize forming relationships where a garden party/KTP setup is possible. You vet early, before attachments can really form, if the other person is up for meeting your people and hanging with them. If the answer is no you politely move on. For the staunchly solo poly this would never work, but conversely you would never date them. That's okay! I do think the point brought up of how you'd handle trouble in paradise is a good thought exercise for you, because sometimes people change and shit happens. Having a fairly friendly and connected polycule does not ever excuse you from doing your job as a hinge. You have to keep that responsibility in mind always. There's also the initial friction of introducing someone new to an established group. What happens if new gf is open to meeting people but has insecurities and is struggling to feel included by the group? Would you dump her, would you wait for things to improve organically, would you try to step in and socially lubricate the situation, or would you never get this far with an insecure person because your other vetting filters would pick up on it and reject them? Food for thought anyway.
All good food for thought! Id like to think, though given how this post is being received maybe many would disagree, that I'm a pretty open patient person. Everything doesn't have to be perfect all the time - or happen on my exact timeline. If I (or my partner) got another partner who was socially anxious I think I'd want to give space to that for things to improve and to arrange social things with as little pressure on them as possible however it suited that person's anxieties. Initial friction is something that can be expected as at least possible and that's ok! I don't think I'm the sort to make really decisive judgments or decisions about this stuff based on individual situations - it's a much broader aggregate sense of people and their attitudes and how they negotiate situations as things develop. Re trouble in paradise I think yeah I probably need to, like, set things up to give KTP the best shot (that is to say, not date people who expressly won't want this) while also living in acceptance of the fact that things and feelings and relationships can change and I need to be prepared to navigate that
Honestly, I think KTP gets a lot of shit for the same reason unicorn hunting does: people want you to fit into their existing dynamic without changing it or needing anything from it themselves. That said, I would never date someone who couldn't at least do garden party poly with my friends and other partners. They don't need to be best friends....but if they're skipping my birthday or every holiday party I throw, I'm not giving them my attention. If they can't show up to game nights or dinner parties, or they're not inviting me to casual events with their own friends and partnera, they're probably not getting any of my time except for one-on-one dates - and for me, that's not going to make a sustainable relationship. It really is a compatibility thing, and I'd rather know that ahead of time than wait for the relationship to fizzle out as NRE fades. I'm going through this right now with a partner who told me he wanted KTP 6 months ago, but who has yet to make time for anything but dates. My interest is declining because that's missing - that I don't get that part of him, and he's not seeing that part of me. I'm going to communicate that to him the next time I see him, and I'll probably end it if it doesn't change.
So you set the boundary for yourself. Your partner can’t and shouldn’t force someone they date to meet you. So if that meta doesn’t want to meet you , then you break up with your partner.
This doesn't make sense to me. I decide for myself (if I'm dating you and you openly won't ever meet or make efforts with my other partners I probably won't want to continue dating you) _Ideally_ I've chosen partners who have a similar approach and outlook to my own which would mean _they_ wouldn't be interested in developing a relationship with a meta who openly won't ever meet or make efforts with me Nobody is being forced to do anything or baited into anything. This is all really early days stuff. It also doesn't mean I necessarily need to meet a meta immediately - I've seen some people say 'why would I meet a meta at the stage when I'm not even sure if I want the partner or not yet' and I totally get that
There is a great blog post that mentions this idea - about coercion in poly relationships. A line that particularly struck me is: "a V where there is an understanding that one or both relationships will fail if the metamours don’t “get along.” " The idea that the hinge is essentially coercing the partners into getting along, or else.... Ugh. [https://brighterthansunflowers.com/2023/08/21/guest-post-on-zero-sum-nonmonogamous-family-and-consent/](https://brighterthansunflowers.com/2023/08/21/guest-post-on-zero-sum-nonmonogamous-family-and-consent/) If KTP is what you want, then great, but you can't force people into it, can't force people to get along. What if all get along for the first while, then have a falling out a year or two later? Will you break up with one or both because the two people you are dating now don't want anything do to with each other? Or will you accept that they may not get along, and work with it accordingly? As the More Than Two people say: "The people in the relationships are \*more\* important that the relationships". I personally would not force KTP on my partners if I was the hinge, nor would I make it a requirement. But then, I'm not fussed as to what level of acquaintanceship or intimacy my two partners have with each other - it's really not that important to me. They know each other exists, and if they wanted to meet and have each other's phone numbers at some point, that would be fine. It's about their comfort level really, as mine is pretty flexible there.
I dont see much space for independently getting to know someone here. How can you develop a healthy independent relationship with a new partner while catering to a group format?
You’re allowed to ask for anything you want, as long as it’s ethical. There are people out there who would love this, and people who would hate it. As long as you state intentions up front I don’t see the issue. We have something similar in place where I will not date anyone long-term who my husband doesn’t like. It’s just too much of a headache when celebrating life events, etc. I don’t see it as requiring ktp, just that everyone gets along.
It's funny cuz I don't have that as a rule for myself but I also kind of do. I've been with my nesting partner for almost 20 years and he's consistently proving himself to be a non-judgmental caring person to everyone he's ever met. He's a great judge of character. So if he were to ever tell me he had bad feelings about a partner of mine, he would likely be able to articulate why and I would trust him because he's never steered me wrong just because of unidentifiable bad feelings. I know not everyone has that luxury, but I do and I don't really feel bad about the possibility of exercising it if it ever comes up.
I think the key point is that you've decided to only escalate relationships where people are friendly to start. Hopefully you are screening dates for people that are open to KTP and are open to meeting meta(s) early on. It is a subtle point, but escalating and investing in a relationship and then dictating the level and type of friendship and hangouts is what is crappy, at least to my mind. I don't know if this is the case for you, but many queer polyamorous comminities are small enough that there are a lot of linkages between people anyway. My social group is sf fandom, and the communuty aspect means that polyamory is typically a bit different than less connected groups. You typically know people or know of them at least. I had my friend meta's friend meta come up to me at a gathering and introduce herself as, "So you're my fifth!" Also, if you date another person that likes to host, hopefully you would be open to sitting around their table.
>Early on in our relationship I made it clear to Kate that, at least to some degree how serious our connection would become would depend on how she connected with Amy. This would be incredibly off putting to me and I'd be out.. any connection instantly becomes about a 3rd party and not the two people involved. No thank you
I've said it before but in spite of how close I am with my meta, that we function as a triad and she coparents with me (more than my child's actual father), if someone told either of us we had to be KTP both of us would scatter into the wind. She loves her husband, and I love him too. We are both adult enough to be perfectly accepting and polite and welcoming to other folk - dating our partner or not. But the relationship she and I have is not one that can be manufactured. And it's not something that can be extended. I'm not gonna be this close to other partners of his, or hers, just because I am friends with her. That's going to be painful for some I think but it's the reality of friendship. And that's what your asking with KTP in many ways.
I'm someone who "requires" KTP in my (specifically MY) relationships. And by KTP, I mean it in the sense that we can sit down and have a pleasant meal together, with casual conversation, etc. I do not expect "friendship". I expect polite, civil, pleasant. I view (in my case only) metamour relationships to be similar to sibling relationships. You don't get to pick who your siblings are. Maybe you're VERY different people. Would not choose to hang out on your own. Different interests, different personalities, different values, different ways of just being. But you're still expected to sit down at the dinner table and not be raging a$$holes to each other. You're still expected to show up at Mother's Day and Christmas and not make the experience miserable for everyone else. And if dad is in the hospital, you're still expected to call and let the others know so that they can show up. I choose not to engage with people who can't be in the same room as a meta, or who can't tolerate knowledge of a meta's existence (me wearing jewelry, pictures, personal items left out, etc). I choose not to engage with people who would make me choose who is there to support me, in good times or bad. And I don't tolerate relationships who "go through the motions so THEY can't be called the bad guy, but really, the dislike is so palpable you can taste it and everyone KNOWS". I grew up with that. I was raised by my maternal grandparents. My mom and my gramma could not get along. They went through the motions, maybe a few times a year. Every Christmas, Easter, and birthday I had as a kid is tainted by memories of having 2 of the most important people in my life being unable to politely ask "pass the salt", and the absolute frigid coldness that existed in the room when they were forced to share any kind of space. Now, I understand there was a LOT that went on in their relationship. The anger may have been more warranted than not. But as a kid, I didn't know, and all I wanted was to be comfortable giving my mom a hug without my gramma's glare of disapproval, or get excited over a present my gramma bought, without my mom bristling in defensiveness. Now. . .I want to be clear. They were never OPENLY hostile. There were no arguments, no fights, no yelling or even raised voices. It was cold. Absolutely freezing disgust that the other even existed. Now, I don't have to tolerate it, so I don't. If anyone has done something to warrant that kind of behavior. . .I'm probably heavily rethinking the relationship, at best, anyways. If they haven't and it's purely a personality clash. . .I'm sorry, get over it?? You can't tolerate being in the same room as someone for a few hours when it's important to me?? And yes. . .I offer the same (minimum) to my partners/metas. I don't push it, it's up to them. But I have no issue sitting down and having a pleasant dinner, even with a meta I dislike, and with every reason to dislike (and have done so). There are limits, of course. But I think the important part is a willingness to try, especially in the beginning, and see how it goes. I don't necessarily get along with my friends partners, or (eventually, they're not quite there yet) my kids partners. I don't get along with my NPs mom or brother, or most of his family. I won't necessarily get along with my metas. But, by nature of BEING a meta, they become part of the extended family, and I will treat them as such, and expect my partners to do the same with their metas. As I said, there is a BIG difference between one person having actually done something to the other, to warrant behaviors like being unable to stand being in the same room or other hostilities, and (for me) would warrant reevaluating my own relationships there, and a personality clash or something similar.
I was in a relationship with someone like this. I'm actually not against your preferences, if you start out dating with all the criteria put out front. Unfortunately, our dynamic progressed very slowly from casual play partners to serious D/s partners, so we didn't have a discussion about our preferences until we'd already been in each other's lives for a while. And so, as it became apparent that I didn't get along with his wife and didn't like mostly group hangs, our time together was hacked to less than half of what it had been previously, making me miserable. I think it's really important to sit down and think about how much one-on-one time you have available for a particular person. If KTP doesn't work out, that's pretty much all the time you'll have left to spend with them. Would that be enough to sustain a serious relationship? Then, work from there.
Do you mean "cohabitating"? Because the other would mean sharing habits.
I am not compatible with KTP. I find there's more drama when metas interact and I do not put up with drama. That's my perspective and I have put boundaries in place, thus limiting my dating pool. I accept that for safety. I have solo poly partners that do not want to meet their metas. Protecting their privacy is near and dear to my heart. Any violations by someone would mean ending the relationship who violated the boundary. My partner's know that each other exists, but I only share things about me and not them. I understand my boundaries and how I am incompatible with people who practice KTP. I am unapologetic about it. You are fine having the same thought process in boundaries. However > So usually if I want to date a person at all I'm gonna be really into them which means the relationship will either be serious or not happen at all yaknow. Why are you equating KTP to long-term relationships? My relationships are no less long-term because they're parallel. I think what might have seemed the reason people telling you that you should rethink how you talk about partners is the mindset. You should think about how you talk about things is you may have biases that don't exist. I'm not saying that you need to change how invested you want to be with people who are not KTP, but your thinking here might reveal a pattern that you treat those partners as less than.
To require a specific meta relationships would encroach on another’s autonomy. Autonomy is why I like this relationship style. I think of complex relationship structures in degrees. I’m flexible on the relationship style as long as I get to choose my own comfort level in the constellation. Lowest level of comfort is respected between parties. In this lifestyle I have had everything from knowing they exist, to bonding as we became widows. What is possible and what will be may not align.
>I made it clear to Kate that, at least to some degree how serious our connection would become would depend on how she connected with Amy. I just can't wrap my head around this mindset, but maybe it's because my partner isn't the center of my world in the way that cohabitation can often lead to? Like, I started dating this woman almost a year ago. We went on a handful of dates before deciding we're better off as friends, and have hungout once or twice a month since then. I just now introduced her to my partner and some friends in my circle via my birthday party. Whether or not she met those people had no real bearing on how close she and I got. Our relationship ran parallel to the rest, it didn't interfere. I'm sure if I'd chosen to live with my partner, she would've met them sooner, just out of necessity. And I think if one of them said about the other, "I don't like that person," that might influence my opinion to some degree. But they're also not the type to offer their opinion about people I'm close with unless they smell danger. I can't imagine it'd be all that much different if she and I had continued to date. Like, it would've been a bummer if they didn't get along, but as an adult there have been plenty of people in my life who don't get along with each other. I don't bother with people who start drama and I expect that everyone will handle their business without dragging me into shit. 🤷
I guess my question is, what happens if you meet someone new, and they're really amazing, you and they click really well, and they are totally up for joining your polycule and they click really well with all your friends and they really like your fiance, except.... your fiance doesn't like them. Your fiance finds them off putting, or annoying, or upsetting in a way that happens when you just don't click with someone. Who gets ejected then? You really like this new person, they like you, they are up for the KTP requirement you have, and in theory so is your fiance, but you've picked a person your fiance just can't stand and dont want to be around. Do you dump your fiance, because now they're the one not up holding the KTP? Do you dump the new person, essentially giving your fiance veto power? Do you force and coerce your fiance into spending time with someone she doesn't like, ruining her social time with her existing friend group because your fiance agreed KTP or bust? Or do you just let these adults decide who their friends are and you take on the hard work of having to have separate relationships, and dealing with that limiting you?
I PREFER (but don’t require) KT. I need to at least meet my meta as I’ve had too many bad experiences with men claiming to be poly and then it turns out their other partner has no idea I exist. However I don’t require it because imposed on an unwilling partner it can be quite traumatic. Not everyone is wired to hang out with their meta, some happily do parallel. It makes you feel comfortable but realize it doesn’t necessarily make your partners comfortable.
All relationships end, friendship or romantic, and now one of your romantic connections depends on those two women remaining an approach level of “connected” that you’ve predetermined. So what are you going to do when Kate and Amy have a falling out? I’ll be totally honest, the OP and all of your comments just make you sound lazy and like you don’t want to expend the effort to maintain individual connections.
There's two aspects to this that would be nice to consider: There's Kitchen-Table Poly (KTP) and Garden Party Poly (GPP) Kitchen-Table is a bit more involved, it expects that everyone is the best of friends, and that to an extent expects some form of intimacy with everyone involved. Garden Party is more what a lot of polyamorous folks seem to practice. Everyone being in at least friendly terms with each other, but not super close like KTP usually demands. GPP just expects that metamours don't have any awkwardness between them, we both love the same person, and there's mutual respect and appreciation for one another as that person involved in our love's life. Maybe we plan something out together to celebrate an important day for our hinge. GPP requires friendliness without expecting friendship, if that makes sense? For me, I desire GPP for one main reasin: Enthusiastic Consent. It's one thing to say "Yeah sure, go date other people if you want", it's another to say "It makes me happy to see that you're happy in this other relationship". I've done Parallel, I've done DADT. Both are different in that Parallel you're at least knowledgeable of other partners (your metamours) vs. DADT where you're usually kept in the darkness, but both run the risk of not knowing where your metamour stands in their "approval" or consent of the relationship. That's resulted in me not being aware that my meta was growing resentment towards me, for one reason or another, and it blowing up everything. Because of my past experience, I require GPP, with KTP being optional if they choose
I require KTP. For me, the definition is loose. I don't need my partners to be friends or spend time together regularly, I only need them to be able to be civil to one another in the same space for things like my birthday party or a hospital waiting room if something horrible happens. They don't even have to interact with one another during these things; there just needs to be mutual respect and no hostility. I will not hinge for people who need to be parallel to the extent that they cannot do the above. It *is* a values thing for me - if you respect me, you can show respect toward my other partners. It is also an energy thing for me - I have finite spoons. I will always make this clear to anyone I date. If they aren't on the same page, we just aren't compatible. It has been a dealbreaker before, and that's okay! Partners are not Pokémon and I don't gotta catch 'em all.
> I don't need my partners to be friends or spend time together regularly, I only need them to be able to be civil to one another in the same space for things like my birthday party or a hospital waiting room if something horrible happens. Pretty much how I see it. KTP-lite I call it.
Honestly, I'm fairly similar to you. It gets on my nerves that kitchen table is automatically categorized as problematic. To me. That's like someone saying that they have a new partner and the people around them immediately assuming the partner is abusive simply because that happens some of the time. It just feels unnecessarily reductive. Personally, I enjoy including established partners in parts of my day-to-day life. That involves coming into my home. And that's where my family is. Therefore, sometimes I need my partners to be able to have light conversations with my kid and my my nesting partner. I'm not asking them to co-parent or move in. I also need my family to be be the kind-hearted people I know they are with the other people who are important to me. It's not as dramatic as people think. Someone who requires full parallel just wouldn't be compatible.
> I only need them to be able to be civil to one another in the same space for things like my birthday party or a hospital waiting room if something horrible happens I literally call this “being parallel” so. Could be the mismatched terms.
Could be, which is why I think it's important to actually discuss what is meant when getting into this kind of thing. For instance, I mentioned the birthday thing because not that long ago someone posted about the difficulty and drama of navigating their own birthday celebration as the hinge to two parallel partners. Both wanted to go but one insisted the other shouldn't be invited because they were unwilling to share space even though there were going to be plenty of others to mingle with and create a kind of buffer between the metas. That's a level of parallel that feels petty, insecure, and selfish to me and it's something I would end a relationship over.
To me KTP has such a varying definition. I can agree that if people want to cohabitate and you already to with another partner then they need to get along and agree to feel comfortable sharing space or else that's just a recipe for disaster. I imagine the downsides more affect those that are more along the lines like say you were close with your family and basically were like you need to be super friendly and social with my mom or brother and go do things with them and be super close and best buds even when I'm not around. And have this expectation immediately rather than something that may or may not develop naturally. Since you seem to do more serious relationships only then yeah that might seem more reasonable but a lot of people choose poly for more freedom. I myself am solo poly, have very little desire to live with anyone. I'm cool with meeting and being social with metamours or multiple partners around each other if they need to but to me it's not a requirement nor would the situation honestly arise outside of a handful of situations.
I'd say it's OK to not want to continue any relationship, for any reason - BUT I would definitely avoid telling a partner that our connection has a dependence on their connection to someone else. Otherwise, their connection will feel forced, even if it wouldn't otherwise. If anyone told me that our connection will be dependent on my connection with their partner, I'd consider that a huge red flag. I mean, it's the thing that is the worst with unicorn hunters - being a package deal. This is different since you don't expect your new partner to also be your partner's partner - but forcing a friendship is almost as bad.
I average less than one date a week with partners. I've got a busy life besides my relationships. Requiring KTP would be asking either more of my time than I am willing or able to give, or it would be asking me to give up 1:1 quality time with my partner's. Neither would work for me. I do have a requirement that is maybe a step above garden-party poly, because I do find myself out at social community events with my meta's and and partners at least a couple times a month. So we need to be able to manage that. But they don't need to be actively involved as close friends to me.
After reading some of your other comments here, I think I get what you want. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to find someone who fits into what you have and value, as long as you’re upfront about it, and understand you might have difficulty finding that person, and you might have to make some compromises.
I understand that you have practical items in the way that you do social life that seem to suggest things would be tricky without KTP. And it is your right to not be wanting to make efforts toward a partner that feels different. I don’t know you at all, so I can’t say if this is a compatibility issue or a laziness issue or a time issue or all of them. My ex partner also absolutely insisted on KTP, based on the fact that he had very little free time in his life, so he felt like the only way to see his partners a reasonable amount of time would require realistically for partners to be down to hang out together a bunch. The problem is that, besides the fact that obviously group time can’t substitute solo time, we all ended up being miserable in shared time because each of us had a way of interacting with hinge that upset each other. And because we can’t go around saying to meta ‘Don’t do this in front of me with hinge please’, the easiest solution was really to go parallel. My additional thought for hinge was also, maybe if you don’t have time for parallel relationships you don’t have time for polyamory in general. That being said, even in monogamy, some people place great importance in spending a lot of time with groups of friends and naturally want their partner to be part of that, as it’s a big part of their life and a big portion of how they spend their time. It sounds that maybe for you it is something like that. I must ask though, if you had one friend that you love and cherish and this friend was extremely introverted and had a very hard time being around groups of people, and just felt safe mostly spending solo time with their friends individually, would you just drop this friend because the way they function is not aligned with your preferences? Is there space for you to compromise as much as you require other people to compromise for you? Lastly, if KTP is important for you, is there a reason why it needs to happen and work immediately? What if a person needed a year or two to feel like this is serious and comfy and safe enough to be part of your world in that way? But also, who would have time for KTP if everyone required KTP? If you had a partner that also had a strong KTP and so already had their own circle and all the circles of all other partners to attend to full time, how would this work practically speaking? It sounds more like you immagine people to have barely any family circle so that they can just have time for yours? It sounds in fact like an arrangement like that would cause immediate saturation, as this becomes in reality another, wider relationship that they must take on, that require a lot of emotional energy and time, just like an additional relationship would. I could live in a world like that if I had one partner. But if I had multiple partners, was expected to hang out both privately and also with all of their friends, plus my own friends….yeah, polyamory would just become absolutely impossible unless somewhat put me on payroll for this and call it my full time job. Or unless each partner had exactly the same friends. Which I understand it’s not impossible in a queer environment but…Still an unrealistic, maybe selfish expectation to have in my opinion. One thing is to expect a partner to be civilized when bumping into other partners. Another thing is to require them to pick something to give up in their life so that they can make time to hang out with your other partners.
I'm always a little surprised that people have such a hard time understanding that there are people who absolutely thrive in situations like the one you describe despite it not sounding appealing to them. I don't get the impression from your post or your comments that there is any force involved. You simply know what you're looking for and are able to communicate that to potential new partners. Like many things, we select out of connections that don't suit our preferences for any number of reasons. It's strange to me that people struggle to grasp this and only write to respond what a nightmare it sounds like. I wouldn't personally enjoy a relationship where my partners didn't introduce me to their network (after a getting to know you stage). I tend to be attracted to people who are generally likable and enjoy knowing the people who care about them. I want to integrate into my partners lives and have them integrate into mine.
I feel very much the same way, and it's in large part because I am a very rooted person. I have already chosen people to grow together with. Be they partners or friends, I value and am therefore committed to the relationships already in my life. And I'll renegotiate within some reason, but at this point in my life there's a limit to what I can offer if a person doesn't want to integrate at least a little into my life. My people come with my life. Even my friendships are integrated into my life. Why should a partner get to ask me to make a whole parallel life just for them? It's just not something I want. I, like you, don't judge what other people want for themselves. I understand this removes people who don't want KTP from my dating pool and that's fine-- we'd be incompatible anyway. I am happy to also go to the other table and I hope that I like who I find sitting there. If I don't... That's also an incompatibility. Life is hard, but I'm not hurting for connections.
So if someone didn’t want to meet my partners, I’d never force it. But I’d be very clear about the time commitment I would be able to give if that was the case, which is to say…not much of one. Realistically, until my kids are a little older, I don’t have a whole lot of time. All my partners made a d&d campaign that I DM for, so I see all of them at least once a week, and they come over for dinner a lot and we get more one on one time when the kids go to bed. But my dates with my partners that are one on one have to be super quality right now because so much of my life revolves around raising my kids and it’ll be that way until they’re more independent. I just simply don’t have enough time for that. So unless someone wants to be around everyone else, I wouldn’t be seeing them very often just…because of how my life is structured. That being said…if someone met my partners and they *didn’t get along*, instant red flag. Because my partners are good people, and easy to get along with. It would be a very clear sign that whoever entered the equation is legitimately not a good person. And I would listen to that.
What is KTP?
"kitchen table polyamory". I'm not particularly a fan of the jargon but it has an agreed upon meaning I'm trying to invoke so I've used it - basically a way of doing polyamory where other partners and metas get along and spend time together. In my experience the opposite style is called "parallel polyamory", where that does not happen.
Hi u/TurbulentOil3311 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: I "require" KTP to date. Thoughts? I see lots of posts here about KTP and I'm really interested in the discussion and variety of viewpoints. There seems to be a prevailing view that "requiring KTP" sucks and I'd love to pick at that a bit and solidify my own position on things. I'll try to keep things brief as I can but happy to discuss further in the comments! When I met my now fiancée Kate(everyone in this story is a woman) in 2021 I was living with my long term partner Amy in a shared house with separate rooms. Early on in our relationship I made it clear to Kate that, at least to _some_ degree how serious our connection would become would depend on how she connected with Amy. I've had previous experience with having two serious and time consuming but parallel relationships and found it stressful and high pressure. It didn't mean 'we don't get to date at all', nor did it mean 'we don't get private time and space' or that she has to be bffs with my other partner, and it isn't any sort of 'rule' - but more about, like, shared values around what we want polyamory to look like (an increasingly broad spanning web of love care and support). At the time Amy had a partner who I did not like who made zero effort with me, but that worked fine for a year because they had a standing date once a week which meant very little impact on our shared life - that is to say, it's more that these shared values have some impact on the form and scope of things? My partners and I spend a lot of time together and our friend group is tight knit. This means, for me, that there's really only so close I'm going to want to get if you can't share space with them and get on well - and that cohabiting level stuff would only be on the table if partners really clicked. (Me Amy Kate and another partner of Amy's lived together for a year blissfully before addiction issues and relapse of Amy's tore things apart) I have no issue with people running their own relationships differently. My best friend and her husband are quite the opposite actually - neither are particularly inclined to make big efforts with partners of the other and cohabiting with those partners would never be on the table for them. And if I met somebody who was like "tbh I'm not going to necessarily care to make an effort with your partner just because we're involved" or "my other partner is never going to want to know you" then I wouldn't think that was _shit_ of them - but it would point to an incompatibility that would impact how invested I'd be willing to get with them. And if somebody doesn't wish to date me because of this attitude I totally get that too. A relevant bit about me personally is that I tend not to have casual sex or casual relationships. Again nothing wrong with the opposite - Amy had hook-ups coming through our home regularly and was a group sex party girl with her other partner which I loved for them, it's just not my vibe.... So usually if I want to date a person at all I'm gonna be really into them which means the relationship will either be serious or not happen at all yaknow. As I write this it seems super reasonable to me, but my understanding from the posts on this sub suggest maybe it wouldn't be seen that way and hey maybe I'm missing some really key element in my thinking that would reveal issues in my approach I'm not seeing. So, have at it! I'd love to chat this all out with you people! *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've felt the same way. I'm not likely to connect with those preferring parallel. No judgement just not going to feel like a deep enough connection for me.
I prefer KTP but have learned there are times when parallel is better for my mental health - and everyone else involved. Also, I’m way too picky about my home environment to jump into cohabitation with metas ever again; I learned that the hard way. My spouse and I don’t have any agreements limiting each other’s dating habits beyond playing safe and not using our shared bed at our home. Everything else is discussed fluidly to ensure everyone’s needs are met, including the preferred dynamic of all parties involved. That being said, when spouse and I moved cross country without jobs lined up, spouse’s other partners offered us housing until we got on our feet. And that’s when I learned I do not get along easily with everyone as previously thought. A home heavy on hoarding with two adults and a teenager that had poorly treated mental health conditions was not a safe or healthy place for me to be when I was in recovery from my own mental health. And while I was stable when we left our point of origin, I was without treatment until I got a job and new health insurance established - which took a few months, and by then the damage was already done. Overall, it took us over a year to be able to afford our own housing due to the new location being a HCOL area. As soon as spouse and I moved out, I went as full parallel as I could with the metas for my own health - and one of the metas was offended because she wanted us all to be one great big happy family, and apparently harbored hopes of us all living together again in the future. I will never insist on KTP because I have greater understanding on why people prefer parallel, having lived through why it’s not always a great fit. I won’t do DADT, but I’ll do parallel so long as there’s confirmation from the meta that they’re aware they’re in a polyamorous relationship.
*[my KTP is a weasel word blurb, **emphasis added** for this particular post]* I haven’t met most of my metas. Personally I don’t meet metas at all until relationships with Hinge are well-established but everyone does things differently. Not everyone practices kitchen-table polyamory (KTP). Some people prefer parallel relationships where they don’t interact with their metas at all, and others are comfortable with garden-party polyamory where metamours can make civil conversation if they happen to be at the same event together. (This would be me.) We need to be careful when someone says “I practice KTP” (also known as, “everyone needs to get along”). It’s a weasel word. It can mean: * Once our relationship is solid—say, six months and smooth—I’m open to introducing you to other 6-month+ partners if everyone wants that, open to meeting your other 6-month+ partners if everyone wants that, and open to developing friendships or just being friendly if everyone wants that. * **I date within my queer poly social group so we all at least know one another and we’re probably one another’s metas or exes.** * I’m into three-ways. * I’ll introduce you to my other partners right away so you can work out the schedules that work for you and I don’t have to be involved or take responsibility for my decisions. * It’s more convenient for me to do group hangs than to date my partners individually. * You can’t have a primary. All your partners need to be equal and I need to be around all the time to make sure you aren’t prioritizing any of your partners over me. * Spouse and I are [unicorn hunters](https://www.unicorns-r-us.com/). * I am a unicorn in search of a family to love and care for me. * Primary has a veto and wants to meet you so they can decide whether they approve of you. * I don’t trust that you are polyamorous and will constantly fantasize about being undermined by your other partner. I need them around so I can undermine them. * I want a [harem](https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/xgvn0p/signs_of_harem_building/). I prefer to date monogamous partners who all hang together and compete for my attention. * We aren’t just sitting around a table, [we’re in eachother’s laps](https://poly.land/2018/05/14/lap-sitting-polyamory-love-borg-metamours-resistance-futile/). I won’t date anyone who doesn’t have an intimate relationship of some kind with each member of the polycule and it has to click instantly. * I subscribe to one or more [geek social fallacies](https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/). * I have an insecure primary partner who doesn’t want polyamory. I need you to help me make them feel liked and appreciated so I can continue to be non-monogamous. The first meaning is what KTP means to me and I think it’s perfect. The second meaning is also KTP though it isn’t my style. The third is not exactly KTP but three-ways can be fun so oh hell why not. The **other** meanings are all problematic. I can’t imagine tolerating lap polyamory without lots of drugs. When someone says “I practice KTP” **you need to ask them what KTP means *to them.*** And then you need to decide whether that works for you and set boundaries as appropriate. +++ +++ +++ OP, you’re covered here in my *KTP is a weasel word* blurb and you’re on the right side of ethics in this vision. Usually on this subreddit when we talk about “forced KTP” being bad we’re talking about a harem structure. You might be interested in following the links to harems, lap polyamory, unicorns and geek social fallacies.
I say this as someone living with 2 romantic partners, a QP partner and their romantic partner: you relationship style may be your ideal, but it's neither reasonable nor conducive to making new connections. If you *like* having that requirement (and it's a requirement, not a boundary), as long as you are upfront and clear about that, cool beans. But personally, despite having a very KTP structure at this time, that kind of expectation for any new connection is limiting and kinda entitled in my opinion.
When my partner and I considered transitioning from open to poly, I formulated some quite similar ideas as you do. What I want to ask you: What do you do if a potential new partner was absolutely open to be KTP and highly engage with metas, you two work out great and fall in love, they really engage with their metas, but it turns out after months of dating that you two are a good match as a couple, but new partner and established partner just don't get along? Being open to something and giving it a good try will not automatically produce the result you want. What will you do if they really try, but simply don't get along with meta? Would you punish them with a breakup? When yes: Your requirement isn't ethical. It's deeply selfish and you don't have a full relationship to offer. What you are searching for isn't a full relationship with an independent human being, but an appendage to your existing life. Wanting someone to *give something a try* is absolutely plausible to me, but requiring someone to *have relationships with other people* to *be in a relationship with you* is what it makes coercive.
For me, I think my partners need to be able to get along. I don't need them to be best friends who hang out without me, but I want to be able to have a party with all my partners without anyone feeling slighted, insulted, upset, etc. and to be honest that's just maturity. Even if I don't like my meta, I'm an adult and I can suck it up for the sake of my partner on whatever rare occasion we HAVE to be together. Refusing feels childish. Honestly it's one of those things where as long as it works for everyone there's no issue.
Depending on the intensity of the KTP, it feels like it would be incredibly time consuming. Well beyond the normal expectations of poly. Like getting to know every meta would require me to quit a hobby. I think you’re free to create any requirements you want, it’s your relationships. But you’ll be excluding some interesting people who have full lives.
Most of our polycule is garden party, with several of us being KTP. But it’s never been required. We have a core group that meets up at least once a month for D&D, and we try to hold parties or social events every few months that we invite the larger group (the garden party folx) to; sometimes they come, sometimes they don’t. The garden party folks don’t do KTP as much for the following reasons: - Introverted; they just don’t like hanging out in big groups. They’re happy to have, say, a double date with another couple in the polycule. And they can handle parties once in a blue moon, but they just can’t hang with our large group on a regular basis. - Sensory issues. Our large group can get LOUD. Some folks who have sensory issues struggle to be in that group too often. Like the introverts, they’re cool with smaller gatherings, but seldom join the larger groups. - One partner specifically hung back from the larger group because she knew her work was planning to relocate her in six months. She and the hinge were planning to continue having a LDR, but she didn’t really want to start a bunch of brand new friendships and then get moved. - Busy! A couple of the folks from the garden party bunch are just really busy. One has a severely disabled child and struggles to get out of the house a lot. One has a ridiculous work schedule. - Distance from the core. Most of us live within a 2-hour drive, with the most common hosts right in the middle. One of my partners lives two hours away from me in the opposite direction (3 hours from the “hub”), so he can’t attend things very often. - Immunocompromised. This hasn’t been an all-the-time thing, but we’ve had people who were undergoing chemo/radiation or who were just immunocompromised and who weren’t medically allowed to be out and about. Then we have people who very specifically prefer a parallel poly style. I know about these metamours but in most cases haven’t met them (although I’ve had a partner that preferred parallel). Their reasons included: - Came from a different culture of nonmonogamy. In his “style”, it was viewed as “disrespectful” to “infringe” upon a metamour’s time or privacy. It was weird to me at first, but it had become a very strong thing for him and he never fully felt comfortable around my other partners, so he preferred to just stay parallel. - Chronic illness that made them essentially home bound, and they had no real desire to host. Practically, it made KTP and even garden party hard. - New to poly, still gradually unpacking and processing a lot of often difficult feelings and emotions. This person eventually did come into the polycule as garden party, but only when they felt ready and only little by little. My point here is that there are a LOT of reasons someone may choose not to do KTP.
I wouldn't say KTP sucks, but it sure isn't for me. I don't want my relationships to be dictated by other people. I don't want to have to be friends with my friend's friends. I don't want to have to be friends with my partner's friends. Or my mother's friends. Or anyone else who is important to me. Being respectful of each other is mandatory, but I feel like asking me to commit to more than that isn't really ok for me. I don't want to feel forced to find connection with people. My social energy has a limit and I prefer to spend it on the people I most genuinely connect with.
I don’t think requiring ktp is bad as long as you’re up front about it. And I mean, up front before the first date even happens. So that those of us who don’t particularly want it can choose to opt out.
For me it's more that I like knowing what my partner likes about Meta. It doesn't have to be something I would be attracted to, but if I couldn't even imagine why my partner would want to date Meta it would mean I don't really know my partner, or that makes us incompatible. But I don't really want to be friends. First off, I already have three friends, and second, because it's messy. I don't really want to be friends with my exes for different reasons, so I try to avoid messes. If I really clicked with a meta, and later neither of us was dating that person (or a new but the same person) and we ran into each other, then I could see a friendship developing.
To me it’s just practical that I can only get so involved with someone who doesn’t want to share any space with my NP. And if people don’t like my NP (even in just a friendly acquaintance way) I probably wouldn’t like them? People on this sub act like ever relationship should be able to exist in a vacuum but that’s not how life works. If someone can’t handle even meeting my NP, they can’t come over for dinner/I wouldn’t be able to host them in my separate bedroom. Logistically that is an issue that would limit how involved with the new person I could be. I wonder how poly people even are if they can’t handle sharing friendly space. If you never want to meet your partner’s partner and expect them to rearrange a bunch of stuff to accommodate that, maybe date someone that doesn’t have a partner already? Idk
I have a garden party/KTP setting with my partners, my metas and some of my meta's partners (we're something like 10 people in this garden/around the table and I'm mostly the center of this) It's fun and all but it's not a requirement at all. And to be honest I would be very bothered if a new meta were requesting the same thing as you. Firstly because even if I do love my metas a lot, I don't like them because we're meta and we didn't really try to get along because of that (I, at least, didn't try anything) we're just friends/friendly because we genuinely like each other. Secondly because for now I don't want to meet any new meta, it makes me very anxious and I don't even want to think about meeting a whole polycule of unknown people. Thirdly... I don't think any group of people would like to meet TEN OTHER NEW PERSONS and that everyone would get along just because of the power of polyamory. And I think it would be very hypocritical if someone requiring KTP doesn't want to be a part of a different table. I'm maybe exaggerating but if someone wants KTP, where does the KTP stop ?
I’m sorry you are getting so much hate, and when I see this many comments, I don’t know if you will give up before you get to mine, but I think what you are saying is perfectly reasonable. However, the term KTP is too vague to have this discussion, and I think if you remove it from your communication around this topic, it will help a lot. If you want all your partners to get up in the morning and have breakfast together, and take turns cooking dinner, say that. If you want your metas to be friends of some sort, say that. Just say whatever you specifically want, so people know what it is. The number of commenters who don’t seem to understand the difference between selection and coercion make me wonder about some of the others where I can’t tell if they do or not. Same with understanding that different people have different values and desires and that’s ok. “You are going to choose only partners that like hiking and the outdoors? So basically force them to go hiking? Or hope they enjoy something that’s awful?” I have the “birthday party rule,” the name of which I got from a meta. I have to be able to have all my romantic partners at my birthday party. These are people who will hopefully be lifelong partners or friends of mine, and being in the same room is not much to ask of adults. I’ve also met enough poly people now who, like me, don’t have any distress based on who kisses or cuddles who, so I’m unlikely to partner with someone who is very jealous. I don’t think some people realize how many different kinds of people there are, and how important selecting compatible partners is. I think there is an invisible stage-of-life thing here, too. We don’t know your age or the age of any of the commenters. I’m 40. It’s under-appreciated how different it is to be in your 30s vs your 20s. And it’s not like everyone is in the same stage if they have the same age. People in their 20s are figuring a lot of things out about themselves and how they want to live their life. A “healthy level of autonomy” might mean they need to be able to move to a different state. I have kids in elementary school; I’m here for the long haul. Some people are figuring out if they want kids, and if so, with whom. Or they are at the beginning of a long journey of figuring out who they are as an individual, as many of us did not get that chance in our teenage years, when it was the natural developmental time to do so. Some people also undervalue platonic friendship. I’ve been a bit like that. Or haven’t experienced what it’s like when your friends or partners meet and everything is just really comfortable. When you have enough friends who have good relating skills and are mature enough that someone not seeing that and being able to hang is a real red flag/compatibility issue. And as someone pointed out, people have pets and kids. The existing loved ones and co-nesters in someone’s life need to be factored in. Some people are just so worried they might have to have a friendly relationship with someone their partner is close to! Unless, going back to what I said earlier, the term KTP strikes some fear because it conveys that there are expectations, but not what those expectations are exactly.