Cohabitation

[XiaXian]

It began in the thread about coming out to the family and so I thought I'd start a new thread so as not to hijack that one.

Personally, the thought of cohabitation as an end scenario to our Triad status or if we were to include others later on, sounds tantalizing to me.  I don't like the idea of a group of us who just gets together every week to fuck when childcare is available (at least for the long term).  For the short term and the getting to know you stages and growing together stages, this is fine.  But...

I like the idea of a tribe who lives together as a single unit, raising the children together, helping each other out with the house and the cooking and the emotions and the general individual needs of each family member within the tribe.  How many people are in the tribe?  I don't know.  I could be happy with just the 3 of us or 4 or 5 or more I think.

My husband is not so thrilled with this idea.  He thinks that if anyone were to move in eventually, he'd have to play the role of psychologist to both (or more) of us (which I disagree with) and that he doesn't have the energy to do that now with just me (which he doesn't do now anyway).  He feels that he'd be sucked dry of his energy and his emotion and his stamina and that he's too stressed out with things as they are (work, kids, my health status, and the fact that he doesn't get enough sex because of my health...).

I see his reasons as not being well thought out.  Firstly, he'd get more sex.  Secondly, I'd have more help around the house so my health would not be as much of a toll on him because he wouldn't have to pick up the slack anymore.  Thirdly, I'd have help with the kids and cooking and cleaning and he'd have more stress free time.  Fourth, the psychologist is a therapist I see weekly, and I wouldn't stop that.  My husband doesn't participate in that emotional support system stuff anyway, so I don't see him participating in it in the future and then you have the emotional support that the women give each other (him aside).  So he really wouldn't have to deal with it.

The only thing that I see being a stress to him is the fact that we'd all eventually have our periods at the same time and that would be hell on earth for a couple of days while we're all bitches.

Anyone else care to chime in?

[DorothyGale]

Things are pretty similar with me and Mr. Gale.  While I think it would be lovely to have a group living situation, he thinks it would be "too much drama."  Although I do think the who-sleeps-in-which-bed part might be a source of argument.  I can't really envision us all in one room.

Then of course there's the financial side - it's bad enough when a couple divorces, but trying to split up assets between 3 or 4 people would be really messy.

Still, I do have hopes.  The thing is, in order for us to buy a house here (expensive area) we would be looking at finding a house we could split with another couple anyway.  So why not with our partners? 

Maybe if everything is still going well in a year or two.  But so much can change in that time.

[vrimj]

This is a conversation that would be better if you were having it with all the people involved.

The thing with polyamory is that it is easy to write a fairy tale script and then look for someone to play that part.   And that is dangerous because the people you date can feel like you are not looking for a real messy person, but rather for an actress to take the part you have made.

You might meet a wonderful partner who is just too messy, or whose parenting style just doesn't mesh or who just doesn't like living with others.

Your husband might fall head over heals and want to move someone in and you find you are uncomfortable with that.

Talking about what might happen is great, talking though senerios is wonderful but making plans for a person you have not met yet is just not a great idea.

[Orlando]

"I see his reasons as not being well thought out.  Firstly, he'd get more sex.  Secondly, I'd have more help around the house so my health would not be as much of a toll on him because he wouldn't have to pick up the slack anymore.  Thirdly, I'd have help with the kids and cooking and cleaning and he'd have more stress free time.  Fourth, the psychologist is a therapist I see weekly, and I wouldn't stop that.  My husband doesn't participate in that emotional support system stuff anyway, so I don't see him participating in it in the future and then you have the emotional support that the women give each other (him aside).  So he really wouldn't have to deal with it."

All of that sounds great.  Who doesn't want more sex, more help around the house, more love, more affection, more emotional support and all that?  I certainly would love to have all of those things myself, and in a co-housing situation, I firmly believe I would have a lot to give my partners, and in turn they would have a lot to give me.  However, I think it's important to make sure pre-existing relationships are healthy and balanced before expanding to include other people.  I know this is pretty much the accepted wisdom among many poly people, but I think it's also easy to build up a lot of expectations on what the checks and balances will be when your tribe is still theoretical.  

Most people are in a constant state of change, and even though I have no direct experience with it yet, I suspect multi-partner households that have the most hope of success are those that make mutually satisfactory agreements ahead of time, but are comprised of people who expect things to change and are not only okay with, but bravely anticipate periodic renegotiations to make sure everyone's needs are being met.  Sexual relationships can start out hot and cool down.  Someone can suddenly realize that they're not cut out for child-rearing.  Someone can wake up one day and decide they really want to have a baby.  And it's tough to remove yourself from the feelings of the people around you, even when they've given you permission not to worry when you're being emotional.

I'm as liable as anyone to look ahead to the time when I'm not the only poor slob flipping poops out of the catbox.  I'm looking forward to long conversations, and a healthy sex life, lots of movie-wine-cheese couch time, playing with kids both large and small, board games, and back rubs, and taking turns doing the dishes and the laundry.  I think all of that will work out fine for everyone.  We've spent some time envisioning what life in our particular triad would be like.  But I don't anticipate triad-life being an oasis for any one of us.  I think it's going to be much harder, to be honest, than living with only spouse.  With a full triad, it's going to be like marriage to the power of 4: her+him, him+me, her+me, her+me+him.  And talk, talk, talk, talk talk.  

And I do think that takes quite a bit of energy.  Possibly lovely, mayby totally worth it, but the opposite of easier.

[VorScott]

Since I got us into this, I figured I'd chime in.  In the case of our triad, it's not a hypothetical, because all of the concerned parties are in place.  Therefore, we have the chance to poke at some of these issues before we jump in.  Housekeeping standards?  Orlando is very tidy, but tends to let laundry and dishes slide- two tasks I don't mind doing.  None of us is especially fond of heavy cleaning, but the surplus from downsizing to one household might cover a periodic maid service visit.  Property division?  We'd establish an explicit up front contract in case that unhappy day came to pass.  Synchronized periods?  Already happening anyway.    Parenting styles?  We're still poking at this one, but we're also learning from each other.  Sleeping arrangements?  We all share a bed for sleepovers now, but would have a "backup bed" available in case someone needs a little solitude.  Sleep cycles?  Might be more of an issue if our small boys didn't pretty much override our wakeup times.

So yes, we've given this a fair amount of thought, and we're actually writing down issues as they occur to us, no matter how banal (different tastes in home decor?  Dietary preferences?).  If we cohabit, it's a huge bet for us and our children on the long-term success of the triad, so we're going to examine it from every angle and for a long, long time before we jump.

...but Orlando's house *is* really awesome....

[TheOgre]

*shrug*

For my part, our part, I think that's sort of the romantic ideal as well.

I think of it, though, in the same way that monogamous people think about it with one partner.  Which is to say, it might not work out, or something else might present that is viable but alternative, or whatever.

I think one large issue is that cohabitation requires compromise.  Monogamous people do this by default, almost.  The big changes and stuff that people make when they move in that are almost unthought-of because the social metanarrative suggests that is normative behavior.  Stuff that people get over or strive to deal with.

I think polies don't ... try as hard, in some respects.  Not as a disparagement to the community, but that I think existing outside of the social norm as a whole AND having no social construct to work off of sort of leads poly people to more rapidly abandon or reconfigure polyamorous relationships.

People get married, move in, one's a slob, the other isn't, it's grating as hell on the non-slob, but generally they become inured to "dealing with" the situation, and the slob slowly starts to change behaviors because of negative feedback from the other partner.  And they get angry and they fight and they storm around, but then they reconcile and move on.   I think a lot of this is because 'that's just what people do'.  There's pressure from society to stay together.  There's unspoken pressure from society that being married and dealing with it is "what people do".

On the other hand, the social pressure is to not be poly at all.  I see a lot of people coming to poly from within traditional relationships.  I see a lot of people structuring poly around traditional reltionships.  There's no great cultural push that says:  "This type of poly is regular."  There are no Happy Quad Day cards.  Nothing to say that three or four or five is "right" and that people should struggle to keep that going during the times when it doesn't seem to be working out.  It goes south, people shrug, part ways, and return to their traditional diad couplings.  Somebody got uncomfortable, somebody got their feelings hurt, somebody left the seat up, and then it's away.  And I attribute a lot of that to the fundamental stressors on poly relationships in the first place ... that society as a whole suggests that they Should Not Be.  

Myself, I think the cohabitation-as-normalcy model is very intriguing.  Opportunity costs for many things go down directly.  It's cheaper and more effective to house 3-5 people together than to have 2-3 households.  Food costs, care costs, housing, power, etc.  

As Anodyne puts it, she wants "the white picket fence" scenario ... just with more people.  And I think its brilliant.

I just don't know if society will allow it yet.  Not just in pressures put to disallow, but in the fundamental mindsets of even the people in the community.  

--O

[XiaXian]

You all have brought up very interesting points.  I wanted to throw in something else.  Because I too, have the mindset that living as a poly household would be much like living as a mono household and in turn, the process of going about moving one in would be the same... at least in my mind.  And we were really close to this with our last partner when she went berzerko on us.

I think many women want a level of security in a relationship that they can count on.  If we were at the beginning of a relationship that seemed like it was working out well between all parties and communication was good, I think this could be a conversation to be had.  A conversation after NRE is over, of course.

We could start off with the traditional thing that most people do... Why don't you bring your toothbrush and a change of clothes this time?  And then, we bought you a new toothbrush for when you're here.

Those little baby steps of slowly moving someone in without moving them in.  They haven't been given a drawer yet, they haven't been given a key.  They haven't been officially asked yet.  But it gives us all more time to spend together, and see how we like spending ALL that time together and see how we all live together and whether or not the person is an absolute slob or a total nutjob perfectionist who ends up rearranging the cabinets to suit her tastes.  And obviously not move too fast.  My husband being the more level headed one, would help a great deal in that regard.

If we can handle it, we ask the person to move in.  If she accepts we're all a happy Triad Tribe.  If not, we keep things as they are.  If it turns out that things go icky, the financial/legal stuff is all between my husband and I and so basically the secondary would just move out like anyone would in a breakup.  But I'd hope for the best!

I think it's possible.  I don't hold expectations for any relationship.  Ever.  Expectation leads to disappointment.  Hopes yes... but not too soon.  One needs to get to really know a person first.

I agree... the white picket fence scenario with more people IS brilliant.  We know that the Cleaver family doesn't exist in real life, even in a mono family, but I think that having the ideal and working to make it so is huge!  And for me anyway, I think it's worth trying.  I think the benefits of having more people in the dynamic far outweigh the negative aspects.  Yes, it is more work than just two people.  A LOT more work.  But as long as people are on the same page and do understand that people change, and as long as things are laid out in a good foundation, I don't see why it couldn't be successful.

Are there any people in the forum who are currently living in this dynamic (a Triad or more) who want to step in here and say something?

[Orlando]

"As Anodyne puts it, she wants "the white picket fence" scenario ... just with more people.  And I think its brilliant."

I think it's brilliant too.    But I also understand and appreciate your argument.  It's hard to keep 2 people on the same game plan, and the difficulty increases exponentially as the numbers rise, especially when its seems like everyone you know is just waiting for the "inevitable" implosion.  All the more reason to build a network of supporting people you trust, poly and non-poly.  This is one big reason that gay communities cropped up in major cities (the West Village in Manhattan, the South End in Boston, the Castro in San Francisco, etc.).  People wanting to live among people who will be actively supportive of their relationships.  Oh, and the ability to walk down the street with a lesser chance of getting your head bashed in by haters.  That's a bonus too.

Coincidentally, my neighbors just *happen* to also be poly, and a large number of our respective friends (though not all) were delighted to hear the news, because it gave them a chance to come out as poly, kinky, and what have you.  I think if more people started living openly, we'd start communities, like the small but growing poly community in Davis Square in Somerville, Massachusetts.  Before I met VorScott and Scrabblequeen, I was thinking of moving to Davis Square, or Boston's Jamaica Plain (which has a large lesbian population), but have decided to stay put for now.  Because my house, like VorScott says, really is pretty awesome.

[vrimj]

People get married, move in, one's a slob, the other isn't, it's grating as hell on the non-slob, but generally they become inured to "dealing with" the situation, and the slob slowly starts to change behaviors because of negative feedback from the other partner.  And they get angry and they fight and they storm around, but then they reconcile and move on.   I think a lot of this is because 'that's just what people do'.  There's pressure from society to stay together.  There's unspoken pressure from society that being married and dealing with it is "what people do".

This is an interesting example for me because Rob and I are both slobs of the "I like things clean but not enough to actually clean" sort and have talked about what we would do if we had a partner who needed more order. Right now my preferance is to pay for a maid for the privilege of not having to care.  Which I think sort of points out one of the strengths of the poly community.  By and large people are not as big on just putting up with things that make you crazy, but there is a real commitment to finding a third way when you have two opposing positions.  Which is not that surprising since poly itself is a third way sort of thing.

And I want my white picket fence to be made out of vinyl because I am lazy

[VorScott]

Interesting FYI- Scrabblequeen and I have exchanged keys with Orlando, and she has a drawer, toothbrush, etc. at our house, which is where sleepovers have mostly happened.  We have the big bed, y'see.  So I guess we are taking the "gradualist" approach.

[XiaXian]

 
The drawer.  It has such a comedic value to it.  Sorry.  Was it in How I Met Your Mother?  Friends?  I don't remember.  Funny though.

[agahran]

Seems to me that most relationships tend to change significantly once people move in together. That changes the context enough to basically make it a new relationship -- whether the people involved are willing to admit that or not. So I agree with the earlier commenter about the incremental approach: try with short stays and leaving some stuff there first. Then maybe progress to an initial period of living together while keeping a solid exit strategy in place -- that is, DON'T sell your house, or give up your apartment, for a good period of time (I recommend a year or two).

IME, when people jump into living together in any intimate relationship -- poly or mono -- just assuming it will work out in the end because "we really love each other," that's probably a disaster in the making. WAY too much pressure on everyone involved.

- Amy

[pastrychef]

If you're going to move in together then you need to have formalized the relationship with some sort of ritual. The unmarried who cohabit are usually unready to make the decision to stick with a given relationship, which is why they skip the wedding.
Before you all start jumping up and down at the W word....
I don't think the State should have any say in who we choose to marry. Neither the sex, gender nor number of partners is the government's business. That said, I'm all in favor of rituals and public ceremonies that solemnize life changes. If poly groups were to engage in these types of rituals then perhaps  when things got tough they would remember what had drawn them together in the first place.
I'm saying this badly. I don't know if these rituals exist, or if people create them in the poly community. (not being active in the "poly community") I do think that cohabitation without solemnization leaves the feeling of having an escape hatch. As moribund an institution as marriage can be, I do see that couples who get married feel a "duty of care" to the marriage itself, to the continuation of the relationship. Marriage is talked about as having ups and downs, times of high excitement and times of lowered connections.  People who get married have some expectation that the NRE will wear off and things will need working out. So they often try to get things right before they dissolve the marriage. That divorce is easier to  get these days both lets people get out of really bad situations and lets couples just give it up because it's hard work.
So-
if you think that cohabitation is on the menu, try framing the question as a marriage proposal. Do you want to try to be with this person for of the rest of your life? As an alternative , would you sign a binding contract for, say 5 years, to be in a "marital state"?  You need to be ready to accept the hard times with the joy.

[pastrychef]

And on the other hand-I know plenty of people who couldn't live together in happiness at all. Some of them are even married. I would love to get E to come live in my house next year-but I know just how well he fits into his neighborhood, and how the one where the house is just won't work with his life. I would be delighted to be able to sneak in time together and he would be miserable because he's too far from the train and there isn't a late night Indian restaurant around the corner and it's too damn quiet with no sirens or loud noises right under his window. He wants to be with me, but I'm not his whole life. So we aren't going to be living together any time soon.
The desire for that all-day/all the time connection can override the reality that living styles can be incompatible. The relationship has to come first, then the ideas of cohabitation, etc.

[VorScott]

...and that's a perfect example of why cohabitation isn't right for every relationship, and therefore shouldn't be viewed as the ultimate measure of success.  For that matter, "success" is a very elusive concept when it comes to relationships.  Dan Savage, in his book The Commitment, notes that the standard cultural measure of a successful marriage is death.  If only one person (or no one at all) gets out of the marriage alive, that's a big win, folks!  If both people get out alive, that's a failed marriage.  Maybe we need a new yardstick.

On the topic of commitment, I agree wholeheartedly.  In fact, Scrabblequeen, Orlando and I believe that all four combos need some form of solemnization if we're going to do this, and will probably celebrate the pair-bonds (all three of them) first, before committing as a triad.

And on the topic of "trial living together": that can be trickier with children in the picture.  A trial cohabit for a week or two over the summer when everyone's out of school is doable (and has been discussed); a trial of a year brings in all sorts of school-system-related complications.  That's one of the many, many reasons why we want to be as certain as humanly possible before we take that step, and when we do, we want to commit to it completely.  There's more at stake than just the three of us.