Monogamous needs + polyamorous values = hard to get a family

[Kakapowl]

Hi everyone! At this point I’m not sure I have a specific question since I know no one can solve this problem for me; I think I mainly need to vent to people who understand, but any insight is of course appreciated.

I basically ended up non-monogamous “by accident” - I don’t “need” several partners like other polyamorous people seem to do; in theory I could be perfectly happy (and maybe even thrive most) with just one close relationship. I don’t get crushes and I hate dating. But I developed a close bond to a married person by chance several years ago, and after all of us read up on polyamory and went to group therapy, we decided non-monogamy was the best descriptor of what we had and we all fully embraced it. However, I don’t live with them and now I am struggling with conflicting needs: wanting all the aspects (except sex) that monogamous relationships have, where you cohabitate with and even raise kids with one person whom you love, on the one hand, and needing to keep this existing close relationship in my life, on the other. Whether it’s romantic or not is not clear to me - we have a lot of emotional and physical closeness including dry kisses but I get that from my parents and my cat as well and that’s apparently not romantic. I can see him as a brother or a partner, or more accurately, neither - he’s just a very important person to me. But we can’t live together full-time, and I don’t think I would want to live full-time with him anyway due to the little sister-big brother dynamic. For a full-time cohabitating and co-parenting partner I need something more symmetrical. But just like other people keep their parents and siblings in their lives when they get married, I need to keep this person in my life, and I am not okay with setting rules around physical closeness with him any more than I would be ok with setting rules around that with my mom. Similarly, I would not be ok with prohibiting a new partner from also having other important people in their lives. It feels deeply wrong to me both emotionally and intellectually (but I’m not judging people who feel otherwise!).

This conflict between “monogamous” needs (in terms of time and relationship content) but non-monogamous values has caused a lot of turmoil for me lately. You see, I recently developed a rather deep bond with a new person where so many things clicked - including him being ok with not having sex - and it’s thus the first time in my life (I’m over 30) where I’ve seen the possibility of the above need getting fulfilled. However, he’s monogamous and in the end he was not comfortable with me being so intimate with the other person. So it’s 100 % certain this relationship won’t work out. But it got me thinking about my future. Where and how would I be willing to compromise? I really don’t know. I feel like compromising with either need of mine is impossible. But needless to say, I realise how small the odds are that I will find a partner that 1) wants to cohabitate full-time and raise children together in a “descriptively mainly monogamous way” i.e. not with so many additional partners that stability and logistics become difficult, 2) is ok with our relationship not including sex, and 3) is ok with me keeping the above person in my life. I have tried dating apps before and they just stress me out immensely, so I could only become close to someone “organically” - and most of the people I will meet organically will be monogamous and allo. I don’t know what to do with this. It seems like accepting that I will likely never have a family is my only choice. 

Does someone here relate to and/or have any other thoughts about this?

[BeADreamer]

1 hour ago, Kakapowl said:

Whether it’s romantic or not is not clear to me - we have a lot of emotional and physical closeness including dry kisses but I get that from my parents and my cat as well and that’s apparently not romantic. I can see him as a brother or a partner, or more accurately, neither - he’s just a very important person to me.

Could it be a QPR, perhaps? A relationship that is not quite romantic but not quite platonic. I have a friend who is close to me in such a way that we've had outsiders insist we'd be married one day, even though we both know we don't want that for our own reasons. Although I think potential partners would probably be more accepting of that because we're both female, and considering that I've only ever had romantic feelings for a man, it's not really a threat to a potential male partner. And if you think what you have is indeed a QPR, (which can be either monogamous or polyamorous) I highly recommend watching Dear Luke, Love Me if you're looking for understanding.

[Kakapowl]

1 hour ago, BeADreamer said:

Could it be a QPR, perhaps? A relationship that is not quite romantic but not quite platonic. I have a friend who is close to me in such a way that we've had outsiders insist we'd be married one day, even though we both know we don't want that for our own reasons. Although I think potential partners would probably be more accepting of that because we're both female, and considering that I've only ever had romantic feelings for a man, it's not really a threat to a potential male partner. And if you think what you have is indeed a QPR, (which can be either monogamous or polyamorous) I highly recommend watching Dear Luke, Love Me if you're looking for understanding.

Yes! We’ve actually used that label ourselves sometimes. Although I’m still not sure what the difference is between queerplatonic and “romantic asexual” (I even made a Venn diagram once illustrating how the two categories have been described and in the end they overlapped basically 100 %, the only difference seemed to be that the one “feels” romantic and the other doesn’t - well what does “feeling romantic” mean then? 😂) But in the end I don’t think the exact definition matters; it seems like for monogamous people (or at least the one I recently bonded with) it’s their interpretation of the relationship rather than my experience that decides whether they perceive it as a threat or not. For this particular person “intimacy” was the dealbreaker, and I can’t deny that my QPR is intimate, but then why isn’t my relationship with my mom a threat as well? In my view they all fill different niches and thus wouldn’t be competing. But I’m apparently not the judge when it comes to that… 

Anyway, thank you so much for the movie suggestion! I’ll definitely check it out 😃

[BeADreamer]

On 12/27/2025 at 4:17 PM, Kakapowl said:

 

Yes! We’ve actually used that label ourselves sometimes. Although I’m still not sure what the difference is between queerplatonic and “romantic asexual” (I even made a Venn diagram once illustrating how the two categories have been described and in the end they overlapped basically 100 %, the only difference seemed to be that the one “feels” romantic and the other doesn’t - well what does “feeling romantic” mean then? 😂) But in the end I don’t think the exact definition matters; it seems like for monogamous people (or at least the one I recently bonded with) it’s their interpretation of the relationship rather than my experience that decides whether they perceive it as a threat or not. For this particular person “intimacy” was the dealbreaker, and I can’t deny that my QPR is intimate, but then why isn’t my relationship with my mom a threat as well? In my view they all fill different niches and thus wouldn’t be competing. But I’m apparently not the judge when it comes to that… 

Anyway, thank you so much for the movie suggestion! I’ll definitely check it out 😃

I guess because familial relationships aren't socially conditioned to be threats to romantic intimacy? I can't think of any other reasons

[nanogretchen4]

It sounds like a basically monogamous relationship where you would live with someone and raise children would meet your emotional needs and life goals. A marriage or marriage-like relationship, in other words.

 

Meanwhile, this man you have a difficult-to-define relationship with is literally married to someone else. So it's not like he is making terrible sacrifices like giving up his chance at marriage or children in order to be in this difficult-to-define relationship with you. 

 

As you mention, organically meeting someone who would be interested in a sexless marriage or a sexless marriage-like relationship with you is challenging. However, it sounds like you might have won the lottery. The only problem is this new guy does not like hearing that you are in a polyamorous relationship with another man.

 

Now, here's the thing. You are not having sex with the married man. You are not going to live with the married man or have children with him. The married man is not available for any serious commitment to you. So it sounds like you have a chance at living the life you want if only you chose to define this difficult-to-define relationship with a married man as "best friends," which is compatible with monogamy. 

 

Are you sure you have to call the married man your polyamorous partner rather than your best friend if the cost is accepting that you will never have a family? I would encourage you to prioritize your own needs. Could you maybe just tell the married man that the polyamorous framing of your relationship is making it all but impossible to find a partner who will commit to you the way he and his literal spouse are already commited to each other? Hopefully he would understand and be totally okay with reframing your relationship, more or less accurately, as a close friendship.