Compartmentalization and Parallel NRE?

[spartca]

Recently I saw someone on another forum asking for advice about adding a third partner to a couple. This person's main complaint was that at some point, all these third parties seemed to end up bonding to one person and disliking the other.

Hm. That's very interesting to me. I wonder if this is material for a new thread? This is a topic that's been mulling around my brain for a while...

Namely, can you have new relationship energy (NRE) simultaneously with more than one person? I know I can, but I've noticed some others can't. It's almost like some folks are going about poly in terms of one NRE sequentially after another, on a base of older established relationships, if any. The gut feeling I get is that these folks don't have room for their next limerence until the previous has exited the queue. Not a judgement, just as observation.

As opposed to this, some poly folks can experience multiple NRE at once. Mainstream research shows that people having long-term affairs can successfully maintain parallel relationships through a mechanism widely known in the counseling field as "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization is often talked about in a bad way, as though for ideal ego development it's necessary to integrate one's romantic/sexual life into every other aspect of one's existence.

For me this notion of complete ego integration is intuitively incorrect. Of course people have lives outside of their primary relationship. We all compartmentalize our work lives from our home lives to some degree, for example. Those who can't "wear different hats" can find life difficult.

I'm not advocating that we all develop Dissociative Identity Disorder, I'm just saying that having a life of one's own and not being joined at the hip with any partner is an important aspect of a mature, differentiated personality. It's my strong belief, confirmed by experience, that two people can only stand strong together in relationship when they know how to stand on their own two feet separately as individuals first.

Personally I'm the type of person who can be having a train wreck in one relationship, yet be in the throes of NRE in another. If compartmentalization is the skill that allows for this to happen, I'd say it was a good thing! I've never been the type of person who had to put my entire life on hold to grieve because one relationship, however important, bit the dust. I can grieve while developing new connections. In poly life, this is a good thing, because otherwise, it's possible that a person could have the potential to grieve a whole lot of the time as relationships come and go.

Now whether this demonstrates true parallel processing or just "pipeline parallelism" whereby i can fill the process up at each stage is a good question. I believe that I can be developing parallel NRE for more than one person, especially if those people really fit different categories, such as a man and a woman, a primary and a secondary, etc. I've heard kinky folks say the same of kinky vs. vanilla or top vs. bottom connections if they're a switch.

What do you all think of "compartmentalization" and the possibility of parallel NRE in poly life?

In the example mentioned above, do you think what's happening is that the people you're meeting can't really parallel process the development of two relationships simultaneously? They don't have room to hold three honeymoons at once? So they drop one like a hot potato? Or maybe it's like most people develop a hand preference, and only very few can be truly ambidextrous? However if there is an inscentive for developing skill with both hands some if not most people can do it? Maybe it takes a special kind of person to be the third wheel of a tricycle... or a special kind of skill?

[spartca]

I was just listening to some guys on public radio talking about being single dads, and they were making the distinction between "parallel parenting," which is when two or more adults are parenting a child independently of each other, and "co-parenting," which is when those adults are collaborating in their parenting together.

Maybe instead of "parallel NRE" the notion of "co-NRE" might be what is needed for a triad to flourish. This is an example of where compartmentalization could actually hinder poly relationships...

[flexuality]

....and I just wanted to make some friends...... :tong:

Not trying to offend....just haven't got a clue about all that is all. :)

[Solomon]

hhmm not to quote scripture to criticize, am only respectfully offering a nugget of thought, but i think compartmentalization would have to do with trying to serve two masters in which it would be human nature to love the one and despise the other.... as you've already described

personally i think that's why most people despise their jobs, especially if they're married.... jobs are just not designed to produce freedom lol.

having said that.... i believe it might have more to do with prioritizing....

i prioritize flex above all others...even after finding someone to develop a sexual relationship with.... she comes first in my book, and i believe she feels the same way.... otherwise i don't believe we would have the trust in order to consider sexual relations outside our marriage....

i do believe that it's possible to maintain a polyamorous lifestyle as long as there is a prioritization among all... and that everyone's on the same page and comfortable with everyone's priorities, but having never had a polyamorous lifestyle i don't speak with alot of practical understanding lol.

[DC_looking]

No offense meant but when psychobabble permeates a thought process I am always suspect. DID is a highly suspect and controversial diagnosis and has been known in the past as multiple personality disorder, which is not what I think you are talking about. New relationship energy is better known as infatuation or perhaps lust. What you seem to be saying is that compartmentalization can be useful when you are trying to rationalize poly relationships. I think the whole poly thing is kind of silly. Most people I know involved in this activity are either cheating or serial monogmists and all strike me as hopelessly self absorbed. As for parallel relationships, if you are experiencing a train wreck in one relationship while being the throes of NRE in another, I would suggest that the poly/parallel paradigm is contributory to the train wreck.

Just my thoughts.

[mistymockingbird]

It makes complete sense to me spartca. I've always been able to balance multiple relationships at various stages without feeling like any of them were being neglected or emphasized. Even simultaneous NRE for two different people.

I'm attracted to the poly lifestyle because of an acknowledgment that no one person can fill all of my needs. Compartmentalization is key to that. I have needs that are filled by multiple partners and I have needs that are filled by only one person. My relationships are separate and private from each other. Let me be clear that I distinguish between secrecy and privacy. My partners are all well aware of each other, but there are always details of what happens between people that should remain private to those involved and I respect that.

I think the point about the need for "co-NRE" in a successful triad is an excellent one. Even when making platonic friends as a couple it can be hard to find people you both like equally, throw sex and love into the mix and it becomes even harder.

Something I've found is that for every person practicing the poly lifestyle there is a different definition of what it is. A different methodology. I think there are many people who are intrigued by the lifestyle on the surface, but in practice are not equipped to be able to handle it. Perhaps, among other things, it is an inability to compartmentalize that hinders some people.

[leizy]

I appreciate and agree with most of this discussion. Psychobabble is used, effectively, when the "lingo" is used to convey complex concepts simply. Polyamory, and loving more than one person, relationships in general, are incredibly complex, and talking about them in a sophisticated manner requires a sophisticated language. Not to be too defensive here - I've got a Ph.D. in psychobabble, and my whole career depends upon those admittedly sometimes inane concepts...

Spartca - a lot of people are recognizing now that compartmentalization is a good thing, at times. For instance, it is that defense which allows those who have been abused to "put the past aside" and move on with their lives. However, like any good thing, it can be overdone - those boundaries must be permeable. An interesting question in all this is, what is identity? If I behave differently in this setting than that one, am I still the same person? Is my identity defined by my behavior, or by my consciousness, which is a fleeting concept anyway...

I think the comment by misty is apt - poly is different things for everybody. Can two people share and simultaneously enjoy NRE or limerance when a third enters their life? Personally, my wife and I have found that to be true, even when the relationship is weighted a bit more towards one or the other of us - the increased energy floods out into our relationship as well, bringing up the whole.

cheers.
david

[flexuality]

I really hate to look at relationships and people on such a technical and analytical level, but this thread has been kinda "bugging" me.....

I agree with you, David, that compartmentalization can be a good thing at times. It can be a necessary "buffer" to deal with isues a bit at a time, rather than be overwhelmed by them all at once.

However to allow those things to remain compartmentalized over a long period of time can be very counter productive.

I guess my question for you spartca would be why would you WANT to?? Why would you want to compartmentalize yourself?

The only way I see of being able to compartmentalize one's self is to DENY aspects of one's self.

It is interesting that you compare it to DID, implying that a "multiple" can create many different people and just pick and choose which one to "be" in any given situation.

We all are WHOLE people and the "parts" of a multiple all exist within that one WHOLE person. They do not become a group of people. I suppose one could term it as "compartmentalizing" on a grand scale, but that is vague at best.

While "parts" can seem like entirely different people or personalities and even "exist" without the knowledge (in some cases) of the other parts, they are still only PART of the WHOLE person. And the farther apart those compartmentalizations become, the more cut off the access becomes to all other parts of the whole.

Sort of like an orange when it's peeled and pulled apart into segments.

If you take only one segment of yourself and try to have a relationship independent of the other segments, it can be done, but it ends up being only a part of who you are and you end up wondering what's missing all the time.

So you blame the relationship and look for another one....and just keep doing that over and over and over.....when the real problem is that you're only putting PART of yourself into a relationship.

And as Sol put it so well.....you end up serving two masters.

David, I like your word "permeable." That is a far better description of "integration" of a multiple. There seems to be this weird idea out there that a DID person will "lose" their "other selves" or parts if they integrate, when it really is more a case of just becoming more permeable, or closer together.

[CountryLover]

I've compartmentalized relationships well most of my life. When I was a teenager (back in the Dark Ages) I dated several guys at one time and thoroughly enjoyed each one for his unique qualities.

Per social expectations, I married at 20 and became a monogamous wife for the next 20 years. I knew it was a concious choice to be monogamous, that it wasn't a natural thing for me to do.

When I divorced 4 yrs ago, I immediately started dating multiple partners. I had a girlfriend and a minimum of 2 male partners, and maintained wonderful friendships with them at all times.

I remarried last summer, to my wonderful bi husband. Turns out HE is hard-wired monogamous, so I'm back to being monogamous again. It's my gift of committment to him and our relationship.

He says he just can't love more than one person, not with the depth and trust that we've built together. Sex without love is a lot of fun, but adding that special strength to it makes it worthwhile to give him the committment he needs.

[spartca]

I originally started thinking about this topic because I realized that a lot of my straight, monogamous friends have this grieving period between relationships. Conventional wisdom seems to be that a person should grieve fully before entering the next relationship, lest they crash and burn on the rebound. I'm not like that at all - I can have a successful relationship starting as another ends, while yet another continues strong throughout.

Then I saw this video of some talk show about some folks getting divorced and getting so wrapped up in the drama of the breakup that the kids suffered horribly. The lesson advocated by the therapist on the show was to in effect compartmentalize the relationship with the kids from the relationship with the ex spouse, so that they didn't tangle their one mess up with the other perfectly good relationships, that is, the lifetime commitment to a relationship with their kids.

So started to thinking about how I know how to do this intuitively. And I started to wonder how the lessons learned in poly life might apply to families undergoing divorce. That is to say, I started to wonder if straight, monogamous folks might benefit from learning how to do compartmentalization.

[Solomon]

i find it really amazing how sometimes unchanging principles of emotional management can sometimes be chalked up as 'conventional wisdom' which would imply that they somehow change.

i believe that the reason people do need to greive with each relationship is not so much the crash and burn on the rebound effect, it's more like taking time to reflect on the successes and failures of the relationship that ended so that if there's a pattern to it, then they can change the pattern to something that does work for'em for the long term in dealing with relationships...

of course it's not the principal's that break... it's us lol.

truthfully, i would question just how much you're putting into your relationships if this doesn't seem to be the case with you... it's not wrong, but it does seem a bit cold to be able to just jump through one relationship to the next with seemingly no emotional fallout lol.

i also hafta question the true success of your relationships. just how long do they last? from what you've posted, i get the sense that they last until you start to get to know'em...

all i know is that the strongest relationships aren't built on the rosy times.... they're built on the tough times. when you and yours can see how both of you get to the point of having to dig deeper into yourselves than you've ever been and you still don't quit.

it takes alot of energy for any relationship, otherwise it's not a relationship that's going to last... if there's no greiving period then maybe the quality's just not been there?

in regards to the kids getting screwed up in these cases, i totally agree that the parents on both ends need to realize that their kids are going to constantly remind them of the previous marriage and be prepared for it, so that they can avoid dragging the kids into the husband/wife relationship where the kids don't belong.

[spartca]

Sol/Flex I'm gathering from your post that you haven't had the experience of falling in love with two people simultaneously? That's what I meant by "parallel NRE." Are you two poly identified? Curious...

As for me, to answer your questions, my longest relationship was around 6 years. Plenty enough time to get to know each other lol. I'm wondering what you've read that I posted on here to give you the impression I didn't do long term relationships?

Anyways, here in the SF Bay Area I'm known as being less into casual sex than a lot of polyfolk, but more than others. I actually like to have a blend. I like to say I'm available for connections from 5 minutes to 50 years! lol My pattern seems to be that I have 2 or 3 more serious relationships going at a time, and several less serious fuckbuddy-type things as well. I'm not really into sex parties, though, so I'm not as far along on the "polyfuckery" scale as some other really sweet folks that I know. I love group sex, but I'm still rather selective, and I don't really like a random audience either. So I prefer dating to bathhouses or sex parties/clubs.

Right now I'm dating two women that I've been seeing for over a year each. Plus I have various more casual connections that I've been hooking up with for as long as 10 years. I'd love to have a serious boyfriend, but good men can be hard to find!

Right now I'm grieving the loss of a 2-month connection that I hoped would go the distance, but she pulled the plug because she wanted a more casual connection, and I was getting a little too close for her comfort. So I'm bumming for sure, you're probably picking up on that eh?

With my 6-year partner mentioned previously, at first we only dated together, only men. I read in your profile that you two are also potentially dating a few men? Right on!

We had a hard time finding bi men who were really open to a romantic/sexual connection with both of us. We occasionally found a boyfriend for as long as six months though! That was nice, but too few and far between, so then we dated couples. That did provide a few more possibilities in terms of the connections that we formed. Eventually we ended the "package deal" and dated separately.

The one lesson I learned was that having an inflexible agenda in poly life often doesn't work. In a group sex situation, you gotta go with the flow - it's a consensus process. Which ties back to my theme for the week: Tolerance for uncertainty and accepting people for who they are. Thinking people are somehow going to behave differently than how they always normally behave gets my ass in a sling every time lol.

Needless to say, throughout all of this it was a lot of work to maintain our relationship as well as other relationships. Poly takes even more time and energy than being in one relationship!

Also, I certainly do grieve. It just that my grieving doesn't prevent me from moving on with my life, forming new connections, and maintaining the other great things in my life.

Did that answer your questions? How's that search for a boyfriend coming along? Too bad we live so far apart, I'd apply for the job myself! :bibounce:

[Solomon]

i didn't say it was wrong, and i should probably qualify that it sounds like your relationships are perfectly successful to you and that's great, we define success differently, an that's ok...

flex an i dated for over two years and have been married for almost 7 years of constantly changing ourselves, going in many different directions at once and still fighting to get on the same page with each other..... and we still find alot of areas to explore with each other. and we love each other more today than we did when we met.

all i know is that if something were to happen with flex, i would need a very long time to grieve because there would be a HUGE gap in my life. obviously life would go on, but i would need awhile to sort through it all 'cuz i'm just not that fast i 'spose lol.

that doesn't mean that i would be closed off from people, it's actually the opposite, i would look for support from the ones who i can trust the most.

as far as dating other people, we are very careful that our priorities and our communication is up to par and we do everything to ensure that there's no damage to our marriage. our marriage always comes first, then kids, then finances, then friends..... does that make sense?

in your case i'm not sure that i could get to know anyone nearly as much as with flex without going very nuts lol. but there again, it's a great thing that we can define success differently and it's all good.

[spartca]

Sol-

Sounds like you have a very clear idea of how nonmonogamy works for you! As you say, we may be defining success differently.

The saying goes that there are as many ways of doing poly as there are polyfolk. Without getting into networking math, it's probably more like that number raised to its own power, which is a lot of freaking different ways lol. So I'm not surprised we don't necessarily agree - in fact, it would be a miracle if we did. I would have to sell everything and drive up to BC to live with you two lol ;)

Anyways, just to keep things on track here, from what you've described, you have a *hierarchical* poly model, i.e. you prioritize your one and only primary partner above potential secondary partners. Or some might say that you have an *open marriage*. Another way to describe it might be that you are same-room *swingers* who are only looking for MFM threesomes with bisexual or bi-curious male "friends." Am I in the neighborhood here? Throw me a bone, man :)

[spartca]

Here is the feedback I'm getting on this question: The most effective polyfolk can both compartmentalize and share NRE amongst partners.

These are two phenomena that seem to be absent in "monogamous" folks. Monogamy necessitates the "us against the world" position, which means that 1) additional partners must be kept secret and cannot be shared, and 2) the relationship is everything - total enmeshment or fusion between the "monogamous" pair. Monogamous folks can neither individuate nor share fully. What a double bind for them! Sells a lot of books though ;)

In other words, effective polyfolk are skilled at managing permeable boundaries as necessary and appropriate.

[onewhocares]

Well, in my simpleton view of things, having very limited experience in this subject, I do believe that it is possible to have several simultaneous relationships at once. I find, for me, and me only, that I have not been able to find one man who can satisfy my intellectual, emotional or physical needs. I never though of myself as a one man woman. Rather one who is now discovering the joys of a few good men. I like the role that I play in relationships be they, lover, friend, soul mate, confidante, sounding board among others. Discovering new and interesting aspects of a new person is interesting. Sometimes, when the relationship has run its course, saying good bye is not always easy. Sometimes, we never do get to say goodbye. Is this always an easy task? No, not on your life. In the recent past I have begun to realize that it is ok that one person may not be capable of being the be all and the end all for me and that is ok. I think there is more of me to go around and that works for me. Also, I firmly believe that people come into your life for a reason and for each reason there is a season and we need to explore that road together. Sorry to ramble, but its my thought.

Belle

[spartca]

Hey thanks Belle and all of you for your beautiful thoughts on the subject! Keep 'em coming!

[Solomon]

lol spartca... you're missing a couple of concepts in there i think. we're a monogomous couple that chooses to develop relationships with certain people and if those relationships lead into the bedroom then so be it. we really don't like adopting labels per se, because it's too much like defining and confining us, and we're loathe to be defined by ourselves let alone anyone else....

i don't think monogamy is about an "us against the world" position anymore than it would be a position of "me and my multiple partners against the world" position for you lol. flex an i actually keep looking to be acceptable to this world not against it.

i see myself as being an individual, flex is an individual, we chose to share our lives together, while it is true that the two become one, that's the result of synergy and teamwork. i don't know if you've ever read Steven Covey's book on the seven habits of highly successful people, but many of the principals are explained in much more detail there than i can possible convey here.

poly people may be skilled at managing permeable boundries and that's well and good. i'm not sure what ya mean by permeable boundries, although i think those two words are sorta like the words Central Intelligence Agency lol. and personally i'm not sure why anyone would go through the trouble of setting up a boundry so that it can be permeable... but ok. different strokes for different folks an all of that.

monogomous people i think have much more of a perspective of looking for what they can put into a relationship, vs. what they can get out of one, and thereby looking to acheive an optimal balance that works for everyone concerned.... not to mention the teamworking skills that are involved! lol! is impossible to be truly monogomous without learning to appreciate learning about people!

oh, and maybe it's not a bad thing to buy a book once in awhile and to go for application... they are relatively cheap for the info they contain lol.

[spartca]

lol spartca... you're missing a couple of concepts in there i think. we're a monogomous couple that chooses to develop relationships with certain people and if those relationships lead into the bedroom then so be it.

Ah OK! I get it! Thanks for spelling it out for me. And while you said you're not a big reader, I thought you might like to see this great article from New York Magazine that's about what I think you're talking about, called "The New Monogamy." Check it out:

http://nymag.com/lifestyle/sex/annual/2005/15063/


we really don't like adopting labels per se, because it's too much like defining and confining us, and we're loathe to be defined by ourselves let alone anyone else....

Um well not to put too fine a point on it, but "monogamy" is a label. It seems to be the label you've chosen for yourself!

[biwords]

Given all the recent concern over flaming, etc., I just thought I'd mention that the above is a great example of a courteous and respectful discussion between members whose perspectives differ (so I gather) pretty sharply......bravo!

[flexuality]

Given all the recent concern over flaming, etc., I just thought I'd mention that the above is a great example of a courteous and respectful discussion between members whose perspectives differ (so I gather) pretty sharply......bravo!
LOL!

True....though I am tempted at times to use the phrase from the old Saturday Night Live....from waaaaayyy back...as Dan Akroyd used to say to Jane Curtain........"Jane, you ignorant slut!" :tong:

sigh...I'll probably hafta explain that later......hehe!

[flexuality]

Sol's not a big reader???

**looks around the office and wonders where these hundreds of books came from**

spartca, I really think you're either not quite grasping what either of us is saying....or we're not able to put it into understandable terms.

You said "These are two phenomena that seem to be absent in "monogamous" folks. Monogamy necessitates the "us against the world" position, which means that 1) additional partners must be kept secret and cannot be shared, and 2) the relationship is everything - total enmeshment or fusion between the "monogamous" pair. Monogamous folks can neither individuate nor share fully. What a double bind for them! Sells a lot of books though"

I don't agree with this at all. At least not for me and Sol.

How do I explain this?.......we are individuals and together we are MORE than the sum of the parts. It's not about "fusion" or "enmeshment." Our individualness is what contributes to the "whole" of US. We play off each other, we fill each others' gaps (so to speak). We are actaully quite opposite in personalities in a lot of ways, yet we value and hold beliefs very much in common with each other.

I'm gonna hafta think about this more.....that and the chicken is almost cooked! LOL!

[spartca]

Yeah it's almost like we're speaking two different languages, eh?

To get back to the original thread, I started it primarily to get feedback from other polyamorous folks on the subject of falling in love with more than one person at a time. Honestly I didn't expect so many monogamous folks to concern themselves with it.

However, as you've demonstrated, there seem to be a lot of monogamously-oriented folks out there who don't seem to be following the definition of monogamy that's in my dictionary lol. You've got one of those in the office I presume? Here, let me save you the trouble:

"monogamy: The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time."

While I didn't really expect to be discussing nonmonogamy with monogamous folks, there you have it. I really don't mind at all, except that I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with it! As you've mentioned, I'm not sure that there's much common ground here for us to stand on. Shall we agree to disagree so that those of us who *are* polyamorously oriented can get on with discussing falling in love with more than one person at a time (parallel NRE)?

Oh and hey did you get a chance to read that New York Magazine article? It sounded a lot like what you two have going, eh?

[flexuality]

Yes, I read the article....and No, it's not what I am trying to say.

I give up.

[spartca]

I give up.

Me too. No hard feelings ok? And if you two are ever down in my area, look me up! I could use a date ;)