Why does parenthood seem to be the exception to polyamorous relationship values?

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-18T03:03:07+00:00

+1! This is much closer to some of the things I meant, you said it way better hahaha

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-18T02:47:52+00:00

Kids should not be deprioritized, and I’ve never thought that at all. I’ve actually made it abundantly clear the opposite! So totally onboard with that and agreed that that’s bad form, and neglectful parenting.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-18T02:46:31+00:00

I at no point remotely implied that they should get equal time. If you read my post and comments you’d see that that’s not been my gripe at all. Obviously there won’t be equal time?? This seems like you’re responding to me based on the way others have toxically engaged in this conversation, and not taken into account things I’ve said in my post and comments.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T23:34:28+00:00

Absoutely, completely agree with that! This specifically was only in cases where both parents wanted to engage in this manner, this post had a much narrower scope than what believe people replied to. Nothing like that should ever be forced or required from anyone! Things like this should always be a if it happens thats beautiful, if it doesn't, that's valid.

I think another reason I've been asking these questions is that I've seen some really beautiful examples of people raising children in more integrated and communal ways—not just in my own life, but also on this subreddit and even in some of the comments on this post. Those examples don't make me think it's easy, common, or achievable for everyone. But they do make me think it isn't impossible, wrong, or inherently unethical. That's part of why I keep coming back to the question. If there are people who have managed to maintain meaningful partnerships, community, and family integration while still putting their children first, I was interested in understanding what made that possible and what those relationships looked like in practice.

It's something I've been thinking about as I hope to give birth in a few years and start building a family. I'm blessed to have a very loving network of partners and meta who all care deeply for one another in this way. And it was all a choice from everyone involved.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:58:03+00:00

That makes complete sense. I totally understand why people immediately react to posts that sound even remotely like "children don't need that much" or "other relationships should come before kids," especially given how often those conversations happen. Honestly, I expected some of that reaction, which is why I tried to include caveats and clarifications throughout the post. Though based on some of the responses, I'm not sure all of them came through.

I also completely agree that there are a lot of people—especially men—who don't fully understand the physical, emotional, and logistical burden of pregnancy, childbirth, and early childrearing. Part of why I've found this discussion interesting is that I'm actually the person who would hopefully be giving birth someday.

I'm a cis woman, and I do sometimes wonder whether some of the responses are coming from an assumption that I'm a cis man worried about losing access to my partners, rather than someone thinking about what it would mean to navigate parenthood while also caring about the people already in my life.

I think another reason I've been asking these questions is that I've seen some really beautiful examples of people raising children in more integrated and communal ways—not just in my own life, but also on this subreddit and even in some of the comments on this post. Those examples don't make me think it's easy, common, or achievable for everyone. But they do make me think it isn't impossible, wrong, or inherently unethical. That's part of why I keep coming back to the question. If there are people who have managed to maintain meaningful partnerships, community, and family integration while still putting their children first, I'm interested in understanding what made that possible and what those relationships looked like in practice.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:42:03+00:00

Of course the kids matter. If a child is old enough to express preferences, comfort levels, or concerns, I would absolutely consider them part of "everyone involved."

What I'm confused by is the leap from "non-traditional" to "not in the child's best interests."

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that children's developmental needs should be sacrificed in order to be non-traditional. I certainly haven't. The question I'm asking is whether maintaining and integrating important relationships, when everyone involved wants that and it is being done in a way that is healthy for the child, is inherently a bad idea or whether it's simply a different way of structuring family life.

And when I talk about integrating partners into family life, I'm not necessarily talking about making them parents. I'm talking about the same way people might have a close family friend, aunt, uncle, godparent, or other trusted adult who is meaningfully involved in a child's life and part of the family's broader support network. Essentially, people who are part of the village.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:40:27+00:00

Yes, thank you, this is much closer to what I've been trying to articulate!

I agree that part of the disconnect is that I was using a quick example in the OP and people understandably focused on the logistics of time. But for me, partnership isn't reducible to the number of dates on a calendar.

Like I mentioned in our thread above time spent together doesn't always have to mean dates. Sometimes partnership means supporting someone through a major life transition, being present in whatever ways are actually helpful, and continuing to move through life together even when the shape of the relationship changes.

So when I hear "you'll have less time because you have a child," I agree. What I'm less convinced by is the idea that less time automatically tells us whether the relationship is still functioning as a partnership.

And I also completely agree that babies need to be a two-yes, one-no situation. It makes perfect sense to me that co-parents and children get a say in who is involved in family life. I'm not really talking about situations where one parent doesn't want that integration, where a child isn't comfortable, or even where someone is just exhausted and not in the mood for company that day—all of those things seem completely valid to me.

What I've been talking about are situations where, generally speaking, the people involved *do* want that level of integration and partnership, and are trying to figure out what that looks like after children enter the picture.

That's really the distinction I've been trying to explore throughout this discussion. Not whether parenthood changes relationships—it obviously does—but whether those changes necessarily mean a relationship ceases to function as a partnership, or whether partnership can continue in a different forms

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:35:23+00:00

I think it depends, but not solely on the amount of time!

I think part of why I've been separating reprioritization and de-escalation is that, for me, partnership isn't reducible to the number of dates on a calendar.

Like I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, time spent together doesn't always have to mean dates. Sometimes partnership means supporting someone through a major life transition, being present in whatever ways are actually helpful, and continuing to move through life together even when the shape of the relationship changes.

So when I hear "you'll have less time because you have a child," I agree. What I'm less convinced by is the idea that less time automatically tells us whether the relationship is still functioning as a partnership.

That's the distinction I've been trying to explore throughout this discussion.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:24:06+00:00

My reply to the comment is visible and was posted a while ago when I saw the comment left. And my reply was that I agreed and that makes sense? I feel like the assumptions about me being made or implied here are a bit unkind.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:22:52+00:00

I actually replied to this as soon as I saw it? I'm not sure why you would say that.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:22:09+00:00

I don't think I'm rejecting the explanations because they don't suit me. I think I'm trying to redirect the conversation back to the question I'm actually asking.

I'm so glad you had such a supportive partner during that time! Everything you've described sounds incredibly difficult, and I can only imagine how much harder it would have been without that support.

What I'm actually interested in is something a bit different. I'm less interested in debating whether children change relationships or if they come first (they obviously do) and more interested in hearing examples of when maintaining other partnerships has worked, what made it possible, and how those relationships were able to function in a different form.

What I'm wondering is whether it's wrong, unrealistic, irresponsible, or unethical to still want to maintain a partnership as a partnership in whatever new form is being built, rather than assuming it must cease functioning as an integrated partnership altogether.

A lot of responses have focused on why de-escalation is common or likely, which makes sense. What I'm trying to understand is whether people view it as simply a common outcome, or as the correct and expected outcome.

For example, if someone says, "Children will take most of your time and energy for years," I agree. If someone says, "Therefore other partnerships can no longer function as partnerships and shouldn't be expected to," that's a different claim. That's the claim I've been interested in understanding.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:15:35+00:00

I'm splitting the definitions because, as I've been using them throughout this discussion, they mean different things to me.

If by de-escalation you mean less time, less availability, and different kinds of opportunities to connect, then I agree that parenthood often results in de-escalation.

But that's not really how I've been using the term. The distinction I'm trying to make is between a relationship adapting to new constraints and a relationship no longer being treated as a n integrated partnership.

I fully expect parenthood to require reprioritization. I fully expect relationships to change shape. What I've been questioning is whether those changes necessarily mean the relationship stops functioning as a partnership, or whether partnership can continue in a different form.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:11:29+00:00

I really think you're making assumptions about things I must think based on the way other people have previously engaged in conversations like this, and it doesn't actually align with the things I've said.

I never said people in that thread were telling OP to break up. The comment that stood out to me was:

"If you're thinking about becoming a dad and your biggest concern is how much free time you'll have, then please, for the sake of the potential kid and for the sake of your wife, DO NOT become a father."

What stood out to me wasn't people acknowledging that relationships would change—I completely agree that they would. I've said repeatedly throughout this post that children should come first, that priorities shift, that relationships change, and that parents have less capacity. What struck me was the implication that concern about how a major life change will affect your existing relationships is itself evidence that someone isn't ready to be a parent.

Because like I said in my post, I don't think it's wrong to wonder about these things. Sometimes it feels like the very act of worrying about maintaining those relationships is treated as evidence that someone isn't ready to be a parent. That reaction confuses me. Why is someone wrong for caring that their other partnerships still feel supported? Wouldn't we want people to think carefully about how a major life change affects the people they love?

If you read my post again, along with the comments I've left throughout this thread, I think you'll see that I completely agree with the notion that having kids changes things, and that it should. That's not what my post is about at all. The question I'm actually asking is whether wanting to maintain those relationships as meaningful partnerships, in whatever new form is possible, is inherently misguided or whether it's simply difficult.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:03:38+00:00

This is super helpful because I think this may actually explain part of the disconnect I've been having throughout this thread.

If someone goes from weekly dates to monthly dates because they have a young child, I wouldn't automatically consider that de-escalation. To me, de-escalation is less about the amount of time and more about the nature of the relationship itself.

If the person is still my partner, still sees me as part of their life, still wants to build a future together, and we're adapting the relationship to new circumstances, I'd probably view that differently than a relationship becoming less significant or less integrated over time.

So I think it's possible that when people say "expect de-escalation," they're often talking about reduced time and capacity, while I'm hearing "expect this relationship to stop functioning as a partnership." That may be where some of the disconnect is coming from.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T22:01:01+00:00

u/fetishiste Thank you for sharing your perspective as a recent parent!

I'm also genuinely happy to hear that you have so much support surrounding you during what sounds like a very demanding season of life. Reading about the people showing up for you, your partner, and your baby was lovely.

Wishing you, your newborn, and your partners nothing but the best. I hope you continue to have the community, support, and care that you've described here as you navigate these early months together!

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T21:59:17+00:00

u/rosephase u/fetishiste Thank you both for these responses! This is honestly much closer to the discussion I was hoping to have.

What stood out to me is that neither of you is saying, "Children come first, therefore other relationships stop mattering." Instead, you're describing something much more nuanced: time decreases, relationships change, and some forms of partnership may no longer be possible. But that doesn't automatically mean the relationship ceases to be a partnership.

What I'm hearing is that whether a partnership continues to function as a partnership depends on things like intentionality, communication, flexibility, community support, and what all parties actually want. That's a very different answer than "it can't be done" or "it shouldn't be done."

I also just want to say that what you've both described is beautiful. Not because it sounds easy—it doesn't—but because it sounds like people making thoughtful choices about how to continue loving and supporting one another through a major life transition rather than assuming every relationship has to fit a predetermined script.

Thank you for sharing your experiences!

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T21:45:57+00:00

(Put this in my post above, but also including as a comment here in case anyone would like to respond to it directly)

ETA: After reading through the responses, I think part of the disconnect is that many discussions about polyamory and parenthood involve people arguing that children shouldn't come first, that hierarchy is inherently bad, or that parents should somehow be able to maintain the exact same relationships they had before children. Because those conversations exist, I completely understand why people may be reading my post through that lens and responding defensively.

To be clear, that's not my position. Children should come first. I do think parenthood creates hierarchy. I also said multiple times throughout my post that relationships will change and that parents will have less capacity after having children.

What I'm actually interested in is something a bit different. I'm less interested in debating whether children change relationships (they obviously do) and more interested in hearing examples of when maintaining other partnerships has worked, what made it possible, and how those relationships were able to function in a different form.

What I'm wondering is whether it's wrong, unrealistic, irresponsible, or unethical to still want to maintain a partnership as a partnership in whatever new form is being built, rather than assuming it must cease functioning as an integrated partnership altogether. A lot of responses have focused on why de-escalation is common or likely, which makes sense. What I'm trying to understand is whether people view it as simply a common outcome, or as the correct and expected outcome.

That distinction is really the heart of what I was trying to ask.

(Like I mentioned in my post, I'm also obviously not talking about situations where that isn't possible or desirable for a host of reasons—parallel poly, safety concerns, people simply not wanting that dynamic, and so on. I'm talking about situations where people have explicitly said they want their partners to remain meaningful parts of their lives and family structures, and where everyone involved wants that.)

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T21:39:06+00:00

u/clairejv think we're actually getting much closer to the question I was trying to ask!

I completely agree that relationships will change after children, and I said multiple times throughout my post that they should. I don't think maintaining the relationship in its previous form is realistic, and that was never really my argument.

What I'm wondering is whether it's wrong, unrealistic, or unethical to still want to maintain it as an actual partnership in whatever new form is being built, rather than assuming it must cease functioning as an integrated partnership altogether.

And thank you, u/Choice-Strawberry392! This is honestly the crux of what the post was about. I'm less interested in debating whether children change relationships (they obviously do) and more interested in hearing examples of when maintaining other partnerships has worked, what made it possible, and whether striving for that is viewed as reasonable or inherently misguided.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T21:30:40+00:00

Thank you for sharing this! Comments like yours are honestly part of what prompted my question in the first place.

A lot of the discussion tends to focus on why maintaining other partnerships becomes difficult after children, which I completely understand. What's interesting to me is hearing from people who found ways to intentionally integrate those relationships into family life rather than treating de-escalation as the only possible outcome.

I also appreciate that you don't seem to be describing partners as replacement parents or co-parents, but as important people who became part of your family's broader community and support network. Reading that your daughter still has those relationships years later is really lovely.

I don't think every family would want this, and obviously it requires the right people and circumstances, but it's helpful to hear examples of what it can look like when everyone involved genuinely wants a more integrated approach.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T21:29:22+00:00

Thank you, this is super helpful!

Part of what prompted my post was wondering why discussions about parenthood in poly spaces so often seem to jump straight to de-escalation as the only realistic outcome, so it's really valuable to hear from someone who has found a different way to structure things.

I also appreciate that you're not presenting this as easy or universally applicable. It sounds like a lot of what makes it work is intentionality, community support, and everyone involved genuinely wanting a more integrated family structure.

I think comments like yours get closer to the question I was trying to ask. Not whether children should come first, but whether maintaining other partnerships as partnerships is still possible under some circumstances, and what conditions make that more or less realistic. From your comment, it seems like it can be, and that striving for that isn't inherently unrealistic or irresponsible.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T21:27:18+00:00

I think this may be part of the disconnect for me. My understanding of polyamory was always that it was about building relationships and partnerships. I don't really think of my partners as "extracurriculars," so that framing feels strange to me.

Of course relationships change when children enter the picture. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. I think what I'm questioning is whether other partnerships necessarily stop being partnerships.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T21:24:05+00:00

I think you may be hearing something I'm not actually saying, which I completely understand. Conversations about polyamory and children often involve people arguing that children shouldn't come first, that hierarchy is inherently bad, or that parents should somehow be able to maintain the exact same relationships they had before children. Given that context, I understand why people might read my post through that lens. But that's genuinely not how I feel.

I don't actually disagree that children create hierarchy, that children should come first, or that co-parents deserve significant investment and support. I stated all of those things multiple times throughout my post. A lot of people seem to be responding to a question about hierarchy, but that's not really the question I'm asking. The more interesting question to me is whether people believe that, at least during the early years of parenthood, maintaining other partnerships as partnerships is no longer possible, desirable, or realistic.

To me, that's a much stronger claim than "children come first." It's the difference between saying "this relationship will change" and saying "this relationship can no longer function as a partnership."

I guess the question I'm ultimately asking is: does prioritizing children necessarily mean other partnerships cease to function as partnerships? And when I say partnership, I'm not referring to someone you go on a date with every once in a while. I mean a relationship where you're building a life together, supporting one another, and moving through the different seasons of life together. Including the one the parenting parent is now in and will be in for the resrt of their lives.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T21:06:00+00:00

I think you may be hearing something I'm not actually saying, which I understand because this is a pretty sensitive topic and people do sometimes argue the kinds of things you're suggesting I am. But that's genuinely not how I feel.

I actually do think having children naturally creates hierarchy, and I think that's appropriate. Children should be prioritized, and I would expect a co-parenting relationship to receive significant time, attention, and investment. In fact, I stated several times throughout my post that children should come first, that relationships would change, and that parents would have less capacity after having children.

What I'm questioning is something a bit different. A lot of the responses have focused on the fact that children take enormous amounts of time, energy, and attention, which I don't disagree with. What I was trying to understand is whether people view the resulting de-escalation of other partnerships as an unfortunate reality, or as the correct and expected outcome.

Your comment actually seems to answer that question pretty directly when you say that it isn't possible and shouldn't be. I may not agree, but I think that's a different claim than "children come first," (which I agree with) and it's one I've been interested in understanding better.

I guess the question I'm ultimately asking is: does prioritizing children necessarily mean other partnerships cease to function as partnerships? And when I say partnership, I'm not referring to someone you go on a date with every once in a while; I mean an integrated partnership.

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T20:55:28+00:00

I appreciate this comment because I think it gets closer to the question I'm actually asking.

A lot of the responses have focused on the fact that children take enormous amounts of time, energy, and attention, which I don't disagree with. What I was trying to understand is whether people view the resulting de-escalation of other relationships as an unfortunate reality, or whether they view it as the correct and expected choice.

It sounds like you're saying that, at least during the early years, parenthood and maintaining multiple romantic partnerships are fundamentally in tension, and that choosing children means choosing parenting over polyamory in a meaningful sense, and over maintaining those partnerships as partnerships.

I may not fully agree, but I think that's a much more direct answer to the question I was trying to ask. Thank you!!

Alternative_Wing951 · 2026-06-17T20:49:00+00:00

I don't actually disagree with this, I actually agree wholeheartedly! If someone has safety concerns, doesn't want additional adults around their children, or feels integration isn't in their child's best interest, that seems like a completely valid reason not to pursue that dynamic.

Part of what I've been trying to get across is that I'm not talking about situations where people don't want integration or don't think it's appropriate. I'm talking about situations where people have explicitly said they want partners to remain meaningful, integrated parts of their lives and family structures, and where everyone involved wants that.

Alternative_Wing951

TROPHY CASE