I hate conflict. I’d rather it never happened—at my core I’m a people-pleaser who just wants everyone to get along. At the same time, I love dating high-energy extroverted people. And as a deeply polyamorous person, I’m usually dating more than one of those extroverts at once. I’ve learned over the years that more partners (and hence more metamours) means more conflicting wants and needs—which inevitably increases the chances of something going awry.
So when I co-wrote the recent book Nonmonogamy and Group Dynamics with one of my partners, we included a chapter on managing conflict in large romantic groups. While the book is geared toward nonmonogamous people, most of the strategies outlined in it are really just ways of managing conflict in any group, be it families, friends or a particularly intense D&D campaign.
Different kinds of conflicts, of course, require different solutions. Here are some of the most common types of conflicts that arise in nonmonogamous relationships, and how you, your partners and your metamours can face them head-on.
The Problem: Irreconcilable differences
These are unalterable differences within a relationship. Knowing there’s ultimately no way to resolve an issue can suck because there’s a finality to the conflict. At the same time, an irreconcilable difference is nobody’s fault. As someone who tends to self-blame, knowing that can be a huge relief. Take the examples below:
After 14 happily childless years together, Terri wants a baby. I don’t. I thought polyamory would give us options that other people didn’t have, like multiple adults around to parent or me being the fun aunt and living next door—but she wants a nuclear family. It turns out you can’t compromise on this one.
After five years of active polyamory, Veronica decides I am “the one” and wants to be monogamous. I adore her, but I don’t want to stop being polyamorous.
Irreconcilable differences can’t be worked through or happily compromised on. That doesn’t always stop us from trying—especially if it’s not at all obvious at the start that said difference is truly irreconcilable. These conflicts are not time-limited: no amount of waiting for the storm to pass will change someone’s core identity or passionate desire.
The solution: Know when to walk away. Harnessing the power of breakups has been one of the best tricks I learned over the years. I have an iron-clad rule for breakups though: the first thing to say when a relationship is ending is “thank you.” Thank your partner for the time you had together and appreciate the things that worked, even if they don’t work anymore. It’s not only a kind thing to do—it has the benefit of being true.
The Problem: Controlling Behaviours
Being controlled sucks. Unless it’s in a kinky way, in which case it can be hugely fun! But those scenarios are consented to and negotiated. In less collaborative cases, a person may try to dictate things like who a person can see, how often they communicate with other partners or what types of activities they do together. Controlling behaviours are often founded in a partner’s insecurity. They’re no fun to be on the other end of, although I’d hazard that it’s even more shameful to be the one doing the controlling.
Terri institutes a no-sex rule for me dating other people. We can do hand stuff, but no penetration, no oral. She says it’s because she’s afraid of STIs, which makes sense, although I notice that it’s a rule that never applies to her relationships.
The solution: It’s natural to want to make our partners happy, and learning to compromise can be positive—but no one should expect to unilaterally dictate the behaviours of the people they date. As tempting as it is to try and “fix” things inside the relationship, having outside perspectives is crucial, so to help determine if someone’s asks are reasonable, talk to people outside your relationships. Sometimes it can be difficult to judge whether a request or boundary set by a partner is an attempt at control or not. Having friends and therapists to give perspective is very helpful.
If the behaviour is externally assessed to be controlling, have a frank conversation with your partner. If over time they can’t give you more autonomy—then it’s best to leave. If the behaviour isn’t necessarily controlling, but it’s making you unhappy in the long-term, you’ll still have to speak up. Either way: it’s time to communicate.
Keep in mind that some forms of control—such as isolating a partner from friends and family, surveilling, controlling a person’s finances or threatening them—go beyond simple insecurity. These behaviours are harmful, and intervention could be required.
The problem: Breaches of trust
Breaches of trust involve one partner crossing a boundary, lying or withholding or disclosing information inappropriately. In that sense, it’s often undisputed which party is “in the wrong.” These conflicts can be some of the hardest to come back from.
Breaches of trust are often unidirectional, so the temptation is to apportion blame nonstop. While that can be cathartic for the injured party, it’s not always helpful if you want to continue being with the person. Both sides need empathy, even the person who messed up.
I broke Terri’s no-sex rule because I was going through a hard time and needed to get out of my head. I was acting impulsively and a little self-destructively, and I had sex with a casual partner when I’d previously said I wouldn’t. It had nothing to do with Terri—but boy was she mad.
In the middle of a fight, Veronica brought up something that I’d only ever told one person about—and it wasn’t her. I realized she’d been reading my emails to my other partner.
The solution: Get all the facts first, then apply empathy, then problem-solve—in that order. As tempting as it might be to go off on a rant, it’s best to listen to the party who breached the trust with an open mind. The offending party needs to be up front and honest. Both sides then need empathy, so each person should take time to see the other’s perspective. Only once that understanding is reached should you then start to problem-solve.
The problem: Unmet needs
We all have needs, although some people discuss theirs louder than others. As a conflict-avoider, I tend to downplay my needs. If I don’t have any, then there’ll be less conflict, right? Turns out, that’s not a good strategy. Another terrible strategy I’ve fallen back on is to push all my needs down and only bring them up if the situation feels so unbearable that I am ready to walk away from the relationship. At that point, the other person usually agrees to meet my needs, unsure of what all the fuss is about, then we go on with our lives. Minus the shaking and the trembling on my part, of course.
Unmet needs are issues that we can (eventually) work through. If somebody’s not getting their needs met, but an alternative is possible, then addressing the issue will just require some work on everybody’s part. That work may be easy or hard, but it should produce progress.
I have a hookup planned, but my partner Red is teaching her first-ever class and wants me to attend. I hate cancelling things, but she’s really upset that I won’t come to her class and instead prefer to spend time with “some rando.”
The solution: A way forward does exist, so it’s both of you against the problem. Swap perspectives and work as a team. Look for compromises where one person’s needs aren’t being totally overshadowed by the other’s. By teaming up against the problem, you’re very likely to find a good-faith solution that works for everyone. For example:
Red and I develop the language of “importance.” I won’t cancel things unless it’s important. We both agree not to overuse the idea of importance. If important things come up once or twice a year, that’s totally fine!
Practice thought exercise: If two of your partners (or friends or family members) want you to spend the holidays with them in different cities, how do you all navigate this?
The problem: Unfounded insecurities
This is a tough one, because unfounded insecurities often disguise themselves as unmet needs. If someone says they’re upset because you’re spending too much time with another partner, for example, then allocating more time to that person won’t help if the problem was never about time in the first place.
Olive demands that I spend equal time with her and Veronica, my other partner. But this is patently impossible, as Veronica and I live together, while Olive is in another city. I try to use logic and reason before I realize this isn’t about what it sounds like on the surface. Through a longer discussion, we all came to understand that what’s really happening is Olive is afraid of being cast aside when her emotions get too big.
The solution: Use empathy, don’t problem-solve. As tempting as it might be to try to solve things, the truth is that what might look like a concrete problem that needs to be solved is really a cover for deeper emotions. As a result, it’s best to simply listen with an open mind and understand what the core problem is. It might take several rounds to identify the real issue, but it’s worth doing in the long run.
A little understanding goes a long way
At the end of the day, conflict is a tool that can be useful, as much as the people-pleasing part of me hates to admit it. The key to navigating bumps is to recognize the different types of conflict and apply the right strategy in each situation. This is even more crucial in polyamory, where not all partners and metamours will have close relationships with one another—or may not even get along that well. But having some handy tools in the relationship tool belt can make all the difference when you’re halfway up the conflict ladder and need to touch the live wire.
