Metamour Relationships in Polyamory

Sustainable Relationships

In polyamorous relationships, a metamour (or meta) is your partner’s partner. Metamour relationships can range from strangers to friends to lovers. The reality of navigating these relationships is as varied and complex as the people involved. 

In this article, I want to educate about the different ways meta relationships can look, explore some of the challenges unique to these relationships, and share some of my insights and thoughts. Whether you’re polyamorous, considering it, or simply curious, there’s a lot to learn and say about these connections and what makes them thrive – or falter.

Approaches to Metamour Relationships

Navigating metamour relationships in polyamory completely depends on what all parties involved consent to. Here are some of the common approaches:

1. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)

In this approach, partners agree not to share anything about their other relationships. Metas may or may not be aware of each other’s existence. They may choose not to know more than is absolutely necessary or interact at all.

Pros: can help avoid jealousy or discomfort

Cons: can lead to a lack of transparency and communication, potentially causing underlying tensions

2. Parallel

   

Parallel polyamory involves metamours being aware of each other but choosing to keep their lives separate. Unlike DADT, there may be some basic knowledge shared, but the interactions between metas are minimal or nonexistent.

Pros: can increase feelings of autonomy and avoid potential conflicts

Cons: may limit opportunities for community-building and support within the polyamorous network

3. Garden Party

In this style, metamours may occasionally meet or interact in neutral, social, low-pressure settings – much like acquaintances at a garden party. These interactions are generally friendly and polite but not involved. 

Pros: allows for a sense of connection and familiarity

Cons: can feel surface-level or phony without deeper connection

4. Kitchen Table (KTP)

KTP is characterized by metamours being comfortable enough with each other to share meals, conversations, and even family-like bonds around the metaphorical, or literal, kitchen table. This approach emphasizes a close-knit, communal dynamic, where open communication, support, and shared experiences are encouraged.

Pros: can foster a strong sense of community

Cons: can require significant emotional labor and effort to maintain harmony

5. Lap-Sitting

   

This term is relatively new compared to the other ones. This approach takes KTP to an even more intimate level of interconnectedness, where metamours can not only become friends but can also become chosen family and/or lovers, creating a deeply intertwined network of relationships. This approach is characterized by high levels of trust, emotional intimacy, and flexible relationship dynamics.

Pros: can offer a rich, supportive, deeply fulfilling environment

Cons: can become very complex with navigating overlapping boundaries, feelings, and potential for enmeshment

Some Challenges in Metamour Relationships

Jealousy & Insecurity

One of the most, if not the most, common challenges in metamour relationships is dealing with feelings of jealousy and insecurity. There are so many different reasons why these challenges occur; they often stem from a variety of complex emotions, experiences, and situations. 

• Established connection feels threatened: When a new love comes into the picture, an existing love may feel that their connection is threatened. This is especially true if the new relationship seems more aligned. The fear of being replaced or losing a unique bond can lead to feelings of grief and anxiety about what might be lost in the face of this new connection. Even in non-hierarchical relationships, the fear of losing depth or significance can be quite strong.

• New connection feels intimidated by shared history: On the other hand, a new love may feel intimidated by the shared history and deep connection of an established relationship. They might feel they can’t compete with the years of inside jokes, mutual friends, or the life experiences that the longer-standing relationship holds. They might feel they will never “measure up” to the established love in some ways. This sense of inadequacy or being “behind” can fuel comparison and insecurity.

• Comparing relationships: Even when metamours intellectually understand that each relationship is unique and offers different things, it can be hard not to compare. Seeing that another partner gets more time, different experiences, or expressions of love can lead to jealousy. The challenge lies in accepting that different relationships will naturally have different dynamics, needs, and contexts. Learning to appreciate these differences without feeling lesser or more can be a significant hurdle for metamours.

• Unlearning monogamous paradigms and conditioning: For many people, being polyamorous means unlearning deeply ingrained monogamous paradigms. These include possessiveness, the belief that love is a zero-sum game, that a partner’s love or attention for someone else diminishes their love for you, and that exclusivity equates to security and value. Metas may find themselves unconsciously holding onto these beliefs, which can amplify feelings of jealousy and insecurity. Unlearning this conditioning requires both time and conscious effort to redefine love, commitment, and partnership outside the bounds of monogamous norms.

Competitiveness

While jealousy and insecurity are driven by fears of loss and inadequacy, competitiveness in metamour relationships involves a drive to “win” or be seen as the “better” or “more important” partner. This can be subtle or overt and is shaped by various underlying motivations (including jealousy and insecurity) and social conditioning.

• Seeking validation: Competitiveness can arise when metamours find themselves doing things like tallying up time spent, gifts given, or the nature of romantic gestures. The desire to be seen as the “favorite” or to have the “better” relationship can lead to unnecessary tension as metamours vie for validation from their shared partner.

• Pressure to outdo the other: In some cases, metamours may feel compelled to outshine each other, whether in terms of planning elaborate dates, showcasing their connection on social media, or any other area. This can lead to an unhealthy dynamic that can cause relationships to feel transactional.

• The need to prove worth or superiority: For some, especially those new to polyamory or struggling with insecurities, there may be a need to prove that they are “better” or “more deserving” than their metamour. This can stem from fears of inadequacy or past experiences where they have felt undervalued. It can manifest in subtle ways, like monopolizing conversations with the shared partner or trying to one-up the metamour. This approach often puts a strain on both the romantic relationship and the metamour dynamic.

• Unconscious social conditioning: Again, much of the competitiveness seen in meta relationships can be traced back to societal conditioning that places value on exclusivity, possession, and being the “best” or “only” in a partner’s eyes. When metamours see their relationships as a contest, it can reinforce the idea that love is something that needs to be “won” or “secured.” This is a result of scarcity mindset – the idea that there isn’t enough love to go around – and it often prevents metas from forming meaningful connections with each other and from appreciating the unique value each relationship brings. Even in non-monogamous contexts, where these values are actively challenged, the remnants of these ingrained beliefs can lead to unconscious competition.

Sidenote: Differences in Expectations Based on Gender

One notable point I want to make is how expectations often vary between metamours who are women and metamours who are men, particularly among heterosexual/heteronormative relationships. These differences are rooted in patriarchal norms and reflect deeper issues of power, control, and emotional labor.

In some non-monogamous circles, there is an underlying (and sometimes overt) expectation that women who are metas should be open to forming sexual relationships with each other. This desire is often perpetuated by men who fantasize about their female partners being sexually involved. This expectation places a disproportionate burden on women, who may feel pressured to engage in relationships that don’t align with their desires or boundaries. It also perpetuates an expectation that male comfort and desires are prioritized over women’s autonomy and emotional well-being.

The expectation for female metamours to form relationships with each other often downplays the potential discomfort and emotional labor that this places on them. Women may feel compelled to manage not only their own emotions but also the complex and unknown emotions of their metamour. This can be exhausting and can lead to feelings of resentment or burnout, especially when there is little acknowledgement of the additional emotional work being shouldered.

Another layer to this is the tokenization of queerness, particularly bisexuality. In many cases, men may express a desire for their female partners to engage in sexual relationships with each other without genuinely engaging with or understanding queer identity and experiences. This can reduce queerness, particularly bisexuality, to a fetish or a convenience, stripping it of its authenticity and complexity.

If his partners are sexually and/or romantically involved, not only will he be living his dream and eliciting envy from men everywhere, but they might also support each other emotionally, thereby reducing his need to address feelings of jealousy or insecurity. This can lead to an unequal distribution of emotional labor, where women are expected to navigate complex dynamics while men benefit from decreased responsibility.

Conversely, male metas in heterosexual arrangements are often not expected to form any bond or engage with each other. Instead, men often use their heterosexuality as a barrier to reinforce a sense of distance or even rivalry, which is widely accepted as a way to uphold their own comfort and avoid any perception of vulnerability or intimacy with another man. The expectation is often that they remain parallel or at most, friendly acquaintances. This discrepancy further highlights the gendered double standard, where men’s comfort in avoiding potentially emotionally taxing situations is prioritized, while women are expected to adapt, bond, and form relationships that reduce friction for their shared male partner. This reinforces patriarchal norms, where men’s heterosexual identities are protected and maintained, while women’s bisexuality is fetishized or treated as a tool for reducing tension.

Addressing these differences requires actively challenging the patriarchal underpinnings that shape these expectations. It involves recognizing how gender roles and biases continue to manifest even in supposedly progressive, non-monogamous spaces. It’s important that we dismantle these thought processes and ensure that all genders are treated with the same level of consideration, respect, and agency.

The Hinge

A hinge refers to the shared partner between two metamours. Because the hinge is the common link (sometimes the only common link) between two metamours, their actions, decisions, and communication can significantly influence meta relationships.

There’s a saying in some polyamorous circles: “All meta problems are hinge problems.” This suggests that whenever there is friction between metamours, it’s because of something the hinge did or didn’t do. This perspective emphasizes the unique position that hinges often find themselves in. While I don’t necessarily agree with the saying, I will outline a few situations where I do think the hinge can unwittingly worsen tensions between metamours.

Time is a finite resource 

When someone has multiple partners, it means they have to organize their time and attention. This can lead to feelings of neglect, unfairness, or resentment among metamours. If one meta feels like they’re not getting enough quality time, or if plans are consistently shifted to accommodate another partner, it can create a sense of being undervalued or less important. These feelings are misplaced when they are directed at a metamour; they reflect underlying issues with how the hinge manages time and communicates priorities. 

Change is ever present

It’s unrealistic, especially as non-monogamous people, to expect that relationships will remain static and unchanging and that a new presence in a partner’s life won’t ever result in any changes to one’s pre-existing relationship. Change is inevitable and relationships can bring shifts in attention, time, and energy. However, the emotions that accompany these changes – feelings of loss, grief, or uncertainty – are valid. If you used to have your partner’s birthday entirely to yourself and now they wish to spend part of that day with someone else, it can feel like a loss or a diminishment of the specialness of your connection. What can a hinge do in situations like these? The answer lies in communication – constant, considerate, and clear. If the hinge is in a relationship that is becoming so much more enmeshed that it shifts time and attention away from an established connection, it’s important to give the established partner the choice to opt in to the changes, rather than just expecting them to roll with it. The hinge must be willing to navigate these conversations with empathy while also being transparent about changes and their reasons. 

Hinges don’t make good mediators

While hinges often find themselves in a mediating role – navigating the needs, emotions, and boundaries of each partner – there is rarely a way for them to be truly effective in this position. Because they are deeply personally involved with each metamour, hinges are often unable to serve as a neutral party. When confusion, mistrust, or jealousy arises between metamours, the hinge stepping in as a go-between can unintentionally escalate tension rather than diffuse it. Even when well-intentioned, a hinge’s desire for metas to get along or resolve conflicts can backfire, increasing frustration and misunderstandings. Instead of easing the tension, the hinge’s involvement can sometimes create more pressure or lead metas to feel as though their voices are being filtered or misrepresented.

When a Meta Problem May Not Be a Hinge Problem

While the hinge’s role is influential, not all meta issues can be attributed to the hinge’s actions or choices. Sometimes, challenges can arise between metamours for other reasons.

Metamours may simply not be aligned in terms of personality, communication style, or life goals. Just as under any circumstance, people don’t always click and that’s okay. If metamours don’t naturally connect and friction arises whenever they are in each other’s presence, it’s okay if they don’t have a bond or if the hinge is unable to smooth things over when there are misunderstandings. 

Along the same lines, metas may have different expectations about their level of involvement with each other, ranging from wanting close friendships to preferring minimal contact. All approaches to metamour relationships are valid and if these expectations clash, it can create tension when situations arise that require navigating these differing desires. This requires clear communication between metamours and a respect for each person’s boundaries and personal life experiences.

I’m going to stop here for now. I guess I had a lot to say about this and I honestly could say more! Thanks for sticking with me and reading this whole piece. I hope you found something valuable here. If you did, please let me know so I can have an excuse to dig even deeper in more articles about this topic.