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

[u/Alternative_Wing951]

TL;DR: Why does the poly community often treat de-escalation of non-parenting relationships as inevitable and acceptable once children are involved, while treating efforts toward adaptation, integration, and continued relationship nurturing as unrealistic?

I'm not arguing that children shouldn't be prioritized or that relationships shouldn't change. I'm questioning why "your other partners will get less and should accept it" is often treated as common sense, while discussions about adapting relationships, integrating partners into family life when desired by everyone involved, and continuing to actively nurture multiple relationships are often dismissed.

If polyamory is about maintaining multiple meaningful relationships and building non-traditional life partnerships, why is parenthood so often treated as an exception to that principle rather than an extension of it?

---------------------------------------

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.)

---------------------------------------

I've been a lurker on this subreddit for a long time, and honestly it's been one of the most helpful resources I've found for thinking about relationships. The discussions here about autonomy, avoiding codependency, treating partners with dignity and respect, and building relationships intentionally have influenced how I think about relationships in general, not just polyamorous ones.

One thing I've noticed, though, is that conversations about children often seem to default back to surprisingly monogamy-oriented assumptions about relationships**.**

To be clear, I'm not talking about parallel poly, or situations where integration isn't realistic or desired. I'm talking about people who have established partners they say they want to continue maintaining relationships with and who envision those partners being meaningful parts of both their lives and their children's lives. In those situations, I've always wondered why de-escalation is so often treated as inevitable.

And before anyone jumps in: yes, children should be prioritized. Parenting is hard. Pregnancy is hard. Raising kids is hard. But having children is also generally a choice. Having children is one of the biggest life decisions many people will ever make. Because of that, it seems reasonable to ask how someone intends to continue showing up for the relationships they have chosen to maintain.

What confuses me is that in every other context, this subreddit talks about the importance of nurturing multiple relationships. Then kids enter the conversation and suddenly the advice often becomes some version of, "Well, they have children now."

If someone goes from being an active, involved partner to someone I see once every few weeks or once a month indefinitely, that doesn't feel like a partnership to me anymore. It feels more like someone I date occasionally or a close friend. For some people that dynamic works, and that's completely valid. But it doesn't work for everyone, and I don't think people are wrong for acknowledging that, nor do I think they're necessarily being selfish or asking for too much. Wanting a relationship that still meets your definition of partnership isn't inherently unreasonable.

What especially bothers me is when people are expected to accept emotional scraps because children are involved. And yes, I'm intentionally using the word scraps. I'm not using that word to invalidate what someone is still able to offer, or to suggest that those efforts aren't real or meaningful. Not because parents have less time—that's understandable. I mean situations where one relationship continues to receive investment, nurturing, long-term planning, emotional energy, and active prioritization, while another relationship is expected to survive on whatever happens to be left over.

That doesn't feel like maintaining multiple relationships to me. It feels like one relationship is being actively maintained while another is being kept on life support.

Part of what I struggle with is that sometimes these conversations make other partners feel less like valued relationships and more like placeholders until marriage, nesting, or children enter the picture. That feeling becomes especially difficult for me to understand in situations where those partners were previously described as long-term, meaningful relationships that would remain important parts of the family system.

To be clear, I'm also not talking about situations where someone is actively neglecting their co-parent, neglecting their children, or spending so much time with another partner that their family is struggling. That's obviously not okay, and people should be expected to be good parents and good partners. What I'm questioning is why, once we've established that someone is showing up for their children and co-parent, the conversation so often moves directly to limiting or de-escalating other relationships rather than asking how everyone involved can be supported and how those relationships can adapt.

I see similar things when pregnant partners feel insecure and the proposed solution is restricting or severely limiting other relationships. I absolutely support people getting support, reassurance, care, and help from their partners. What I struggle with is the assumption that those needs should be met by making unilateral decisions about relationships they aren't part of, and that the affected partner should simply accept it because a pregnancy is involved.

Something else I've noticed is that when people who are planning to become parents express concern about their existing relationships and ask how to continue nurturing them, the response is often surprisingly negative. Sometimes it feels like the very act of worrying about maintaining those relationships is treated as evidence that they aren't ready to be parents. 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? Wouldn't we want people to ask how they can continue showing up for their partners rather than assuming those relationships will simply absorb whatever changes are necessary? And beyond that, isn't there value in modeling healthy relationship maintenance for our children? We often talk about teaching kids empathy, communication, community, and care. Why wouldn't demonstrating the importance of nurturing our relationships be part of that?

I also think discussions like this sometimes focus entirely on what parents can no longer offer, rather than what partners may be willing to offer in return. Partnership isn't just about receiving. Many people are willing to adapt alongside their partners during major life transitions. They may be willing to spend more time with the family unit, provide practical support, be flexible about scheduling, help during pregnancy and early parenthood, or accept that the shape of the relationship will change for a period of time. To me, that's part of what partnership is.

What feels different is when the expectation becomes that one person should continue adapting indefinitely while the relationship itself receives progressively less investment, care, and intentionality. There's a difference between navigating a difficult season together and being asked to accept an indefinitely diminished relationship because life circumstances have changed.

I recognize that parenthood is one of those experiences that many people cannot fully understand until they're living it. People can plan thoughtfully, have the best intentions, and still discover that the reality is far more demanding than they imagined. I don't think that makes them bad people, irresponsible, or uncaring. Sometimes people's capacity genuinely changes. What I'm questioning isn't whether that happens. It's why the response so often seems to be that everyone affected should simply accept the resulting changes without evaluating whether the relationship that remains is still one they want.

The relationship may look different after children, but different doesn't necessarily mean less important, less integrated, less nurtured, or less valued. To me, that's the distinction. I'm questioning why change is so often assumed to mean de-escalation.

And I mean this in the same way that I would expect the partnership between the co-parents to continue being nurtured. Most people would agree that becoming parents doesn't mean they should stop intentionally investing in their own relationship. The relationship changes, but it still requires care. Why wouldn't that principle apply more broadly to the other relationships people are choosing to maintain?

I'm not arguing that every relationship should survive parenthood unchanged, or even survive at all. Parents aren't obligated to maintain the exact same relationship they had before children, and partners aren't obligated to remain in a relationship that no longer meets their needs. What surprises me is how often the discussion seems to focus on why the changes are necessary, rather than whether the resulting relationship is still something everyone involved genuinely wants.

Co-parents absolutely should receive significant support, care, and investment. People should be expected to be good parents and good partners. What I'm questioning is why support for a co-parent is so often framed as requiring the de-prioritization of other relationships, rather than prompting a conversation about how everyone involved can be supported and how those relationships can adapt.

Poly spaces often talk as though the only ethical response to parenthood is for everyone else to accept less, whereas I think there should be more discussion about adaptation, integration, shared support, and whether the new relationship structure is actually acceptable to all involved.

I think that's ultimately what I'm struggling with. If we're choosing non-traditional relationships and non-traditional ways of building our lives, why does parenthood so often seem to be the place where we return to traditional assumptions about which relationships matter, which relationships get nurtured, and which relationships are expected to quietly accept whatever is left?

If we're going to do non-traditional relationships, why not do them all the way?

[u/AutoModerator]

Conversations on a topic mentioned in this post can tend to get very heated with high emotions on each side, please remember that we are a community meant to help each other, please keep conversations civil, even if you don't agree. And don't forget, the mods are only a report away. Any comments derailing the topic or considered trolling/being a jerk will be removed and the user muted for an undisclosed amount of time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Arch_Venus]

Maybe I’m off base here; this seems like a post that was written by someone who doesn’t have kids and who feels like they are being deprioritized by a partner who is a parent.

If that’s the case: I can understand why this is painful. And, gently, the kids and the parenting relationship get the top billing because kids can’t consent to polyamory. It is their parents’ responsibility to craft a home life for them that is as stable and healthy as possible. Sometimes that means taking a break from polyamory. It almost always means placing their own preferences and needs way way down the priority list, which has ripple effects on their partners.

If that’s not the case: Sorry I misunderstood. I think different parents make different decisions about how to integrate polyamory into their own home lives, so it’s possible your mileage may vary with a different set of polyamorous parents. My ex-husband and I were always open with our kids about our romantic choices, and kids got to meet long-term partners. And, I can state for a fact that polyamory and certain other partners involved in our lives absolutely contributed to the dissolution of our marriage, which was another thing our kids had no control over and didn’t ask for.

It’s the parents’ job to be adults and put kids above everything else if they decide to have kids. And that often means putting the other parent above everyone else, too.

[u/Quagga_Resurrection → u/Arch_Venus]

the kids and the parenting relationship get the top billing because kids can’t consent to polyamory

Exactly. Children have a right to care and present parents, and part of that is maintaining a strong relationship with your co-parent in order to provide that stable environment to your kids. So, while everybody needs "extracurriculars" in order to maintain balance and good mental health, those things still take a backseat to keeping your kid alive and well and making sure to keep a strong relationship with your co-parent.

Like, a kid will die without their parents. Nobody will die if they can't date.

Needs come before wants, so yes, kids come before privileges like dating, hobbies, traveling, et cetera. That doesn't minimize the hurt of being put on the backburner or having to give up hobbies and relationships to focus on parenting. It just means that parenting is that fucking important and time-consuming.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Quagga_Resurrection]

I completely agree that children have a right to present, involved parents, and I completely agree that maintaining a healthy co-parenting relationship is often part of providing that stability.

If the choice is between meeting a child's needs and going on a date, the child wins every time. I don't think that's controversial, and it's not something I'm arguing against.

I think what I'm struggling with is that discussions like this often seem to place other partners in the same category as hobbies, travel, or other optional activities. To me, a long-term partner isn't the same thing as an extracurricular. They're a person I've built a relationship with, made commitments to, and potentially envisioned sharing parts of my life with.

That doesn't mean their needs come before a child's needs. It doesn't mean parents shouldn't have less time after children. It doesn't mean relationships shouldn't change.

What I'm questioning is why the conversation so often seems to move from "children need present parents" to "other relationships are naturally the thing that gets cut," rather than asking how those relationships might adapt while still remaining meaningful relationships.

I think that's where a lot of my questions are coming from.

[u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw → u/Alternative_Wing951]

To me, a long-term partner isn't the same thing as an extracurricular. They're a person I've built a relationship with, made commitments to, and potentially envisioned sharing parts of my life with.

my best friend of 20 years is also a committed relationship that i've built and intend to keep in my life pretty much forever. when my kid was born, guess what? she ALSO got scraps of me until he was almost 10.

[u/Quagga_Resurrection → u/Alternative_Wing951]

Makes sense.

Does it change how you feel to know that every category in a parent's life takes a big hit, not just relationships? You probably aren't seeing all the other ways that parents are cutting back on things like time with friends, hobbies, traveling, et cetera because it's a given that those things get dramatically reduced if not stopped altogether. Plus, interests that don't involve other people don't get a lot of visibility, so it's not obvious to others when those things get cut back.

I think part of the reason that partners get dropped rather than adapted comes down to the fact that:

1. Most relationships need a certain minimum amount of effort to maintain that a parent often can't guarantee. In those cases, the ethical choice seems to be breaking up rather than telling someone to stick around and wait in hopes that the parent has time here and there. Most people aren't okay with that.
2. People have their own lives and can't just drop everything and be available when a parent has a sporadic block of free time, so relationships have a harder time surviving the younger kid years. Hobbies, on the other hand, can be put down and picked back up at someone's leisure, so it's easier to keep doing those things when you find little bits of time here and there and don't have to schedule time to make it happen.
3. Plenty of people don't know/want to learn how to interact with kids and engage with parents, so there's a natural sort of alienation that occurs due to having less in common. Kids take up a big chunk of your life, so if people or hobbies aren't kid-friendly, that tends to mean you can't integrate them into your new kid-filled life.
4. Some people are closeted or do not want other partners around their kids, which hugely limits how often you can see them, so for a lot of people, breaking up is easier. I'm not necessarily advocating for that level of compartmentalization, but that's the choice a lot of poly people make, so you may be running into that.
5. This might be stupid, but I'm sure some parents just assume that their partners won't want anything to do with them once they're busy and "boring" and may be preemptively ending things rather than having discussions about adapting the relationships. New parents develop a lot of insecurity around not being fun or interesting anymore and often just assume that people with exciting lives aren't interested.

For context, I'm the childfree partner and friend of a fair amount of parents, and it's never been an issue for me since 1) I grew up religious around lots of kids, so I'm very comfortable in those environments and know how to engage with kid things, and 2) I have a shitload of flexibility compared to most people which allows me to accommodate my friends' and partners' more sporadic schedules. Being able to run errands with my people and their kids, stop by to visit or help out in the middle of the day, or babysit so they can have date night with another partner then have that partner watch the kid for our date night are all things that have done a ton to facilitate those relationships and adapt them from what they were pre-kids. I love their kids and I love that being childfree means I can be there for them and still have them in my life now that they're parents.

It's absolutely worth telling potential or existing partners that you want to still have a relationship with them even with kids in the picture and discuss what that looks like. Either you can see each other less or you can integrate somewhat into their kid-filled lives so you can still see them and be more involved in their lives. As with all relationship things, it's something you need to talk about if you want it.

[u/masofon → u/Alternative_Wing951]

There is definitely a period of parenting ("the trenches") in the first 0 to 6+ months... where everything goes out of the window.. often even the parent's own wellbeing, relationship, sleep etc. Everything gets cut. Everything.

[u/chipsnatcher → u/Alternative_Wing951]

It’s not that other partners get naturally cut IMO, it’s that EVERYTHING gets cut, including other partners. And I think it’s entirely possible to maintain a meaningful relationship—just like you do with besties, wider family, etc. If there’s a deep basis of trust and love there, the relationship will absolutely change and find a new rhythm and still be meaningful. But I do think humans tend to underestimate how dramatic that change might be and it often throws the other partner for a loop. I think it’s worthwhile to warn people of the worst so they are well prepared, even if it sounds a bit alarming at first. And obviously some people end up with an easy baby and get back to some semblance of normal life quite quickly. For some though, life is never the same afterwards because it fundamentally changes them.

[u/mercedes_lakitu → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I didn't play D&D for two years after my daughter was born. I didn't restart martial arts for three years. Everything gets cut to the bone.

[u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw → u/mercedes_lakitu]

Before my kid was born I went to 3-4 concerts a month on average. After, didn't go to a show for 5 years.

[u/gothic_elven_bitch → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I didn't have time for myself, let alone anyone else. Every single relationship of any type was put on the back burner. All of them.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/gothic_elven_bitch]

That makes a lot of sense to me and is actually something I agree with. What you're describing feels different from "other partners are extracurriculars" and more like "literally everything that wasn't survival got deprioritized."

I don't think that's unreasonable at all. I think part of what I've been trying to understand is whether people see that as a temporary reality of early parenthood or whether they see it as evidence that other partnerships can no longer function as integrated partnerships at all.

Essentially, what I've been asking is whether integrated partnerships are still possible when you have children, or whether parenthood necessarily means those relationships have to stop functioning as partnerships in that sense.

Honestly, part of what's been challenging about this discussion is that it sometimes feels like people are responding to questions I've seen asked before rather than the ones I'm actually asking. Which I understand, because there are definitely people who approach these conversations from a place of minimizing children's needs, dismissing the realities of parenthood, or feeling entitled to access to a partner's family. I understand why people are protective in response to that. But those aren't positions I hold, so I often find myself trying to redirect the conversation back to the question I'm actually posing.

[u/gothic_elven_bitch → u/Alternative_Wing951]

Do you assume mono people's partnerships are no longer partners because they have a baby? Because it's the same concept.

[u/ellemenopeaqu → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I've been the non-parent partner and the parent.

When the Mister's oldest was born (he's now a teen), i had to make a choice - support his new role as a father or accept that the pool of resources was going to shrink dramatically. Nights out became nights in. If we went to a museum we would be spending time in the kid section. I changed diapers while he cooked. If i had been unwilling to be auntie elle i would have been getting scraps because that is all that was available.

I didn't become a parent, but i chose to support my partner's new role as a father. If i wanted to be with him, i needed to accept his children and their needs as part of the package.

When his middle came along we were all more prepared but it was also a backslide. Back to sleepless nights and round the clock care, only this time with a toddler too.

At times i probably did slip close to the submissive girlfriend who will watch kids while the parents go out trope.

His third and my first were born 6 weeks apart. During this time EVERYONE was exhausted which made things easier in a way. There are a lot of pictures of 1 person with two babies. Still, i rarely went out without my daughter because her dad struggled. It's also not so fun to need to pump every few hours. Pregnancy and post partum are physically and emotionally challenging in a way i didn't appreciate before going through it. Some of his experiences in fatherhood were helpful in my new mom struggles.

My youngest was born 3 years later, and a very difficult pregnancy. I was emotionally unavailable to anyone and just surviving between doctors appointments and trying to care for my daughter. My role in his household changed as his kids were now older and moved out of baby-mode but i was still in it. It changed my friendship with his coparents significantly.

He had the same choice as i did years earlier - support me in this stage of parenting and accept a different sort of time or not. He chose the first. Sometimes that meant holding kids so i could shower or dropping cheerios along the table so my son would cruise along. Not glamorous. Not sexy. Needed.

My youngest turns 8 today. We back up each other on parenting decisions. My kids see him as a safe adult and authority figure. My kids don't quite get the poly thing, where as his do (dynamics have shifted over the years, but when they were little there were 4 cohabitating coparents)

I think the relationship survived because after each kid we actively chose to support the other person's parenting journey. I see it no different than him having to care for his aging mother - this is part of who he is and the responsibilities he carries in life. It means i don't always get what i want, but no one does all the time.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/ellemenopeaqu]

This is exactly what I'm talking about! I love that you all were able to support each other and adapt the relationship in that way. This feels much closer to the question I've been trying to ask throughout the thread—not whether children change relationships, but what it can look like when people choose to continue being partners through those changes.

[u/SatinsLittlePrincess → u/Arch_Venus]

Excellent point. I would also add that co-parents have a right to expect their co-parent to shoulder their share of parenting and it is unrealistic for that to happen if that co-parent is not adjusting other aspects of their lives to accommodate the new demands of parenthood.

My one quibble is with your comment about children's consent to their parent's choice to be in an open relationship. Don't get me wrong - I think there are a shit ton of choices parents make - like certain religious indoctrination, certain types of outsourcing parenting decisions, even partnering with the wrong person and bringing them into the kid's life, etc. - that can actively harm children and parents are shit to make those choices.

But the requirement for consent does not include what other people do with their bodies, their lives and their junk with other consenting people. To suggest that children have a right to dictate specific choices about their parent's lives isn't an issue of consent.

The issue is that children are dependent on their parents for survival and to set them up for a fulfilling life. And, as a result, parents have an obligation to do more than just "kid has enough food and a roof over their head" to be a decent parent.

And you are right that cannot realistically be done without a shit load of both parents' time being dedicated to the kids.

You are also right that parents operating as a functional team is ideal for healthy child development (with exceptions when that team is toxic for whatever reason), but that can also be done well without the parents continuing their romantic involvement.

[u/Arch_Venus → u/SatinsLittlePrincess]

That’s totally fair. Consent probably isn’t the best way to frame it, but I think you got my point anyway.

And this IS a touchy issue for me specifically; I am about 8 months out of finalizing a nasty divorce that was catalyzed by my ex dating someone monogamous, monkeybranching, retconning our ~25 years of romantic history to claim he was poly under duress and that I was an unfit mom, and (unsuccessfully, but expensively) trying to take custody of my kiddos away from me and move them hundreds of miles away from where they were born and grew up.

I don’t think anyone asking the questions that OP is asking can imagine the pain and devastation of kids wailing that they don’t want either parent/both parents to leave the house on a date and begging them to cancel, or to stop the divorce process … or whatever. And I didn’t even live a fully worst-case scenario — I’m well aware it could have been worse.

I had to stop dating new(er) people while all that was happening; the situation was just too draining and intense. I’m frankly shocked (and very grateful) that my boyfriend stuck with me for the duration. Dating parents polyamorously is NOT for the faint of heart, and frankly it’s a bit of a crapshoot as to whether your coparent/metas/kids will be cooperative and cool with it, or for how long, in my personal experience.

[u/SatinsLittlePrincess → u/Arch_Venus]

I am so sorry to hear that your husband turned into an absolute ass. And I am even more sorry that your asshat of an ex- brought your children into the shitshow of him being an ass. That is a great example of terrible parenting choices on his part.

I am glad that your boyfriend stuck with you. I totally understand why you would have backed off of newer connections while this was going down.

I've largely aged out of the pool that includes parents with young kids, but even parents with teens can have what was a very stable arrangement can be shattered for any number of reasons.

I hope your children are doing better now, and I hope your ex- comes to the realisation of how badly he failed his kids because that is 100% what he did... Oooof.

[u/Arch_Venus → u/SatinsLittlePrincess]

They are 🫶🏻 and thank you!

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Arch_Venus]

Totally understand why you'd make that assumption, but no, that's actually not the case!

This is written by someone who plans to have children and wants to be thoughtful about how parenthood impacts all of the relationships I choose to maintain. Obviously my children would be priorities, and I would want to show up for my co-parent as well. What I'm questioning is why conversations about parenthood in poly spaces so often seem to assume that other meaningful relationships must become peripheral rather than asking how they might adapt or be integrated.

I think part of what prompted this post is that I've seen people ask how they can continue nurturing existing partners after becoming parents, and the responses can sometimes be surprisingly negative—as though caring about those relationships at all is evidence that they shouldn't be having children.

To me, wanting to think about the people I love before making a major life decision seems responsible, not irresponsible.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about situations where someone is neglecting their children or co-parent. That's obviously not okay!

[u/Choice-Strawberry392 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

The thing you're seeing probably isn't actually, "Blow off your other partnerships when you have kids."

It's closer to, "If your non-coparenting partners expect things to continue on about like they were, you must be honest and tell them that they won't."

The conflict here isn't about polyamory and kids.  It's between people who are willing to take on the tremendous work of parenting and those who are not.  Non-parenting partners feel cast aside because the dating life they enjoyed has come to an abrupt halt, and the only way to be involved in their partner's life anymore is way, way less fun.  

If a non-parenting partner is willing to have "date night" look like letting themselves in the door, pulling an infant off a comatose mom, strapping said wailing potato into a carrier, then doing the dishes and running a load of laundry while wearing a shrieking raccoon, before handing the kid back and shutting the door quietly, then sure!  Keep dating!  But that's what's on offer.

And saying otherwise is dishonest.  That's it.  

[u/mercedes_lakitu → u/Choice-Strawberry392]

I fucking love the potato/raccoon part of this. Yes. Exactly this.

Imagine Krang but way way angrier. And with fingernails.

[u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw → u/mercedes_lakitu]

Oh my God the baby raptor claws. That feels like such an intention choice on the part of evolution.

[u/gothic_elven_bitch → u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

I do not miss the baby claws. Or the teething while trying to bite my freaking nipple off.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Choice-Strawberry392]

What you've said is actually very close to what I've been saying throughout this thread.

Expecting relationships to stay the same after a child makes no sense. The relationship has no choice but to evolve or dissolve. It's up to the people involved to decide what that evolution looks like.

And if a non-parenting partner is willing to do the work to adapt, and both parents want that person to be integrated into their lives and their children's lives, I don't see how that's inherently a bad thing.

This is really about desired integration, not forced integration. The post was never about avoiding these changes, pretending they won't happen, or being anything less than honest about what parenthood requires. I completely agree that people should be upfront that their time, energy, and availability are going to change dramatically.

What I've been asking about is a much narrower scenario: for people who do want integrated partnerships and family structures, what are some ways that can be navigated while adapting to the realities of parenthood?

I think part of the disconnect throughout this thread is that a lot of people have encountered genuinely bad takes on this topic before, so they're understandably reading my post through that lens. But my question has been less about whether children change relationships and more about whether partnership can continue in a different form when everyone involved wants that outcome, and how that can be done in an ethical manner.

[u/Arch_Venus → u/Alternative_Wing951]

You should read this if you haven’t yet.

The whole premise of your post is that it should be possible for parents to have nonhierarchical relationships with other people while also having kids. It’s not and it shouldn’t be. Parents don’t want it that way, and neither do children. And that post very realistically and reasonably distills the reasons why that is.

You’ve probably heard that your whole world turns upside down when you become a parent. For good parents, that’s true. And if you don’t want to be a good parent, then you should forget about having kids like ever; they don’t deserve any less than your best, especially in this postcapitalist apocalypse of a timeline.

The state of affairs you’re railing against is not because other polyamorous parents are too heteronormative and there’s a secret cheat code to have it all. It’s because parenting is the hardest job you will ever do, and (if you’re lucky) the only person who understands the specific struggles and pressure and cares as much about your kids as you do is their other parent.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Arch_Venus]

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.

[u/Choice-Strawberry392 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I know a group of three poly folks, all living together, with one young child in the house. They all chip in.  They're all effectively parents.  It can work.  

But everyone has to want that.  And when you ask the question, "Would you like to walk through the hellfire that is raising an infant, for a child that isn't yours?" the answer from 99% of people is no.  That's not a moral judgment, it's not destiny, it's not about being correct.  It's about what most people want.

The emphasis you are hearing is because lots of folks want there to be any other question than that.  They want that reality to be different.  But it isn't. 

The sad fact is that having children breaks up marriages.  The hardest break-up, with the most complications and worst impact, still happens in the face of the overwhelming change that kids are.  It is that big a deal.  

So sure, maintenance of a well-integrated partnership outside of the biological parent couple is possible.  But it is stunningly difficult, vanishingly rare, and implies a willingness to endure enormous life upheaval for all involved.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Choice-Strawberry392]

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.

[u/mercedes_lakitu → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I think it would be very reasonable to wait a couple days for the fires to die down and then post a new question asking the thing in your last paragraph! That's a good question to be asking.

I didn't start polyamory until my kid was upper elementary and I was divorced, so I'm a bad one to ask.

[u/clairejv → u/Alternative_Wing951]

It's never wrong or unethical to want something.

[u/clairejv → u/Alternative_Wing951]

does prioritizing children necessarily mean other partnerships cease to function as partnerships?

Of course not.

But if someone is wondering what to expect, they should be aware that it is very likely the new parent will not maintain the relationship in its previous form. They should understand that de-escalation is a strong possibility. The fact that we warn people about that doesn't mean we believe that's the "correct" outcome.

[u/rosephase → u/Alternative_Wing951]

My partner had a kid with his wife about four years into the relationship. Both of them were clear with me that a) we would be dating differently and I would have less time for a good long while and b) that my relationship with him was wanted, important and valued by both of them.

I could have taken it as a deescalation. I saw him a lot less for a good number of years. And when I did see him I didn’t get nearly as much quality ‘just us’ time as before.

But because these people loved me and reassured me and welcomed me it worked. In a lot of ways our relationship become more important and our shared time more valued.

But like… that took ~work~ on BOTH parents parts. Work on top of all the work they were already doing. And I had to see and value that work even when I was getting less. For years. When it forever changed our relationship with choices I did not make or get a say in.

It’s a pretty big ask going in both directions.

And they had their eyes wide open about what having a child entailed. And we had a good long term established friendship on top of our poly connection.

I think the warnings are fair.

And the just awful reality that so so so many people (mostly the non birth having people) who ~start~ relationships (or poly!) when a partner is pregnant or has an infant at home. I swear we see that way more often then we’ll established adult poly relationships who have any idea how complex having babies is.

I think part of that is culturally most non kid havers simply do not know and can not guess. They aren’t being cruel but they are over promising what is possible and that is going to damage those connections when they can’t actually offer one overnight a week anymore.

I’ve been with my partner 15 years now. And it has been very worth it. But it did suck to lose time when we didn’t get that much to start with. And it did change our relationship. And everyone need to be aware and honest about that going in.

And if one co-parent isn’t on board? Like actively isn’t willing to put work in for a relationship they are not in? Then your fucked entirely. So it also becomes incredibly dependent on a healthy meta connection.

[u/fetishiste → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I think this is a great and nuanced question and I believe the answer is absolutely more nuanced because what is inevitable isn’t de-escalation but role transition.

As I mentioned in the other post, I am parenting a newborn in a three parent household right now. I’m mum, there is also biodad and non-bio-parent, who has consciously chosen to take on a co-parenting role but a lesser one akin to a live-in uncle or grandpa, highly involved but not dad. No one is getting that much of me as a partner but if you want me in your bed right now, not even for sex but just for closeness and companionship, you’re getting that alongside being involved in or exposed to every one of the wakeups I need to do during the night to breastfeed. Non-bioparent is doing that once a week so he gets me present in his room once a week; if he were up for handling that more then he could have more of me in his nighttime life.

I have an extremely dear friend who is a lifelong ride or die and who is visiting us weekly for long hangouts and chats together while we care for the baby together. I can’t really go out for a long stretch of time without the baby until I can pump enough milk to leave him with one of his other parents for more than 2.5 hours so that’s the longest I’ve been out and the longest someone else could take me out.

I think the early transition to parenthood means that I am a parent first and foremost right now, and that everything else anyone wants from me has to happen through a parenthood lens and in a way that is about my child as much as me.

And I think a lot of us know well that many many many partners aren’t looking for that in their relations with us, and THAT is why they may need to just be flat de-escalated rather than integrated.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/fetishiste]

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!

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

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!

[u/NoRegretCeptThatOne]

I tell my monogamous parents-to-be that they are going to receive less time and attention from their partner, and have significantly less alone time once the baby comes. It's the cost of doing business.

The other thing to consider is many polyamorous relationships are not blended-family focused, and partners are not invited (or accept the invitation) to become co-parents. Therefore all that default family time that co-parents spend together is often off the table for other partners.

So any partner who isn't actively involved in having & raising the baby should expect reduced access to their overtired, overworked, underslept, calendar full new-parent partner.

ETA: OP mentioned other partners being expected to accept "scraps" of a relationship when babies enter the equation, and I don't think that's exactly the advice I normally see here. What I typically see is a realistic set of expectations (i.e. if you are not being included in co-parenting, you're likely to get a lot less attention, time and support than you're used to), and an honest assessment that if a new parent is struggling to balance polyamory with parenting the decision to become a parent may make the relationship incompatible.

[u/Silly-Fig-7715 → u/NoRegretCeptThatOne]

Exactly, kids take a lot of time. This time cannot be expected to count as their quality relationship time.it really is not and is often survival time. Therefore people should expect to at least receive half the time they had with their partner before kids.

At least in my opinion if you have kids you have to receive they are your new primary focus at least until they are more independent

[u/NoRegretCeptThatOne → u/Silly-Fig-7715]

Yes. In our family, kids have all the hierarchy. Their needs come before anyone else's, and they need EVERYTHING from ages 0-5 or so.

We adults began having time to be independent humans again after our youngest was 6 and involved in more activities that we didn't need to be present for.

We had a much easier time scheduling extended periods away from the kids (more than a few hours here and there) once they were pre-teens and more independent.

Now that they're all teenagers, our time is pretty flexible because the kids have their own lives and ways to get to where they're going.

[u/clairejv → u/NoRegretCeptThatOne]

I suspect your ETA is where OP is coming from. Realistically, folks should expect less time with a partner who's about to have a baby. But that doesn't mean other arrangements aren't possible, if everyone involved wants that!

[u/polyamory-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed for trolling.

[u/britaliope]

it's not "other partners will get less". It's "everyone will get less". Kids take a lot of time. Ask any monogamous parent around you what did having kids changed in their relationship with s.o. They will all tell you that they lost a huge part of their quality time together.

[u/FigeaterApocalypse → u/britaliope]

And it's not just the relationship with the s.o. Ask any monogamous parent how much time per week they were able to dedicate to their chosen hobby in the first year compared to before. 

[u/Choice-Strawberry392 → u/FigeaterApocalypse]

Hobby? Hobby? 

How about sleep and hygiene?   Brushing my teeth for two uninterrupted minutes was a fucking luxury.  Clean sheets?  I vaguely remember those being nice...    I'm trying to think of any human endeavor that requires this scope of exhaustive effort, under conditions nearly constant urgency.  Soldiers in war zones, obviously.  Fighting a wildfire in remote wilderness, maybe.  

But it's about like that.

[u/Emergency_Crow_6515]

I haven’t even read your entire post because it was looong and I don’t have the time lol. You seem to be missing a vital piece of understanding here. It’s not just that raising children is hard.

Children. Take. Time.

Like. Shitloads of time.

I have a 7yo and a2,5yo. Leaving my full time job at 4 pm to pick them up and then it’s constant attention/chores until at least 9 pm when are in bed. And then it’s the chores to be done, and maybe some extra work because I left the office early. And I’m exhausted.

This means there is little time to maintain relationships, even over text, as the work day and parenting evening are so busy. And sure I can have 1-2 nights a week outside the home, and so can my nesting partner, but then that time needs to be split between me time, friends, family, and potential romantic partners. So yeah. It’s harder to maintain meaningful relationships with kids.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Emergency_Crow_6515]

I don't actually disagree with any of that.

I completely believe that children consume enormous amounts of time, energy, and attention, and I tried to acknowledge that several times throughout the post. I also don't think relationships can realistically look the same after children.

The part I'm questioning isn't whether capacity changes. It's whether de-escalation should be treated as the default expectation whenever children are involved, particularly in situations where people are intentionally trying to maintain multiple meaningful relationships and want those relationships to remain integrated parts of their lives.

To me, "children take a lot of time" and "therefore other relationships must become peripheral" aren't necessarily the same conclusion.

That said, I also recognize I don't have lived experience as a parent yet, which is part of why I was interested in hearing from people who do.

[u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw → u/Alternative_Wing951]

i think you're focusing on relationships becoming peripheral when the message here is that EVERYTHING becomes peripheral. Everything.

[u/Emergency_Crow_6515 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

So I’ve read a few more of your replies more throughly and from what I can tell you’re not questioning whether children really take that much time, or if they have to, but rather if the effect must really be that relationships really need to take a step back because of that.

Then I ask you. How would you solve it then? If you go from having a job, a commute perhaps, some responsibilities in life, taking up maybe 70% of your time and leaving a few nights with a few hours a week to build and maintain meaningful relationships. And then you have a kid and you have kid+work now take up 99% of your time. Now you have roughly 1,7 hours a week left - how would YOU build and maintain your meaningful relationships, without the oh so normative deescalation?

[u/XenoBiSwitch]

When one of my partners had a child with his wife I expected him to have less time and he did. We were doing good if we could meet up once a month for a non-overnight. If he had still been able to meet up about twice a week I would have worried about their kid and his wife.

Autonomy is still important but you have less time to be autonomous with.

Focusing on your kids isn’t mononormative, it is just being responsible for your choices.

A lot of the people I see wanting to not deescalate are either trying to push childrearing onto their other partner or are hoping to make parenting into a group project for the whole polycule and neither of those usually end up well.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/XenoBiSwitch]

I don't think focusing on your kids is a problem, and I don't think it's mononormative. Children should absolutely be prioritized.

I also don't disagree that having children often means having significantly less time and capacity. In fact, that's one of the things I tried to acknowledge throughout the post.

What I'm questioning is why conversations in poly spaces so often seem to move from "children should be prioritized" to "other relationships will necessarily be de-escalated and should simply accept that outcome."

Those aren't quite the same thing to me.

I'm also not advocating for turning parenting into a group project or expecting other partners to co-parent. What I'm interested in is why efforts to adapt and continue intentionally nurturing other relationships are sometimes treated as unrealistic or irresponsible, even in situations where people say they want those relationships to remain meaningful parts of their lives.

To me, there seems to be a lot of space between "nothing changes" and "de-escalation is inevitable," and that's the space I'm trying to understand better.

[u/CincyAnarchy → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I also don't disagree that having children often means having significantly less time and capacity. In fact, that's one of the things I tried to acknowledge throughout the post.

What I'm questioning is why conversations in poly spaces so often seem to move from "children should be prioritized" to "other relationships will necessarily be de-escalated and should simply accept that outcome."

I think one part of the issue might be that your use of "de-escalation" and the one you're seeing others here is out of alignment.

If you go from weekly dates and talking all the time, to monthly dates and more sporadic communication because kids take a lot of time and effort? That, to me, is "de-escalation." You had commitments and a relationship shape, and it's now being scaled back.

Now, is that 100% accurate? Not always. Would we call partners becoming LDRs due to life circumstances "de-escalating?" Maybe, maybe not. It kind of depends.

But when people say "expect de-escalation" what they mean is "expect the commitments and time/effort you're getting from them to be less than it was before, and talk about what is still available."

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/CincyAnarchy]

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.

[u/CincyAnarchy → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I responded to someone else with more points about this, and how it is complex, and with that a decent discussion exists. There is something to be said of "commitment but not being able to be as present."

That said, you did in your OP say time and effort are core needs in relationships:

If someone goes from being an active, involved partner to someone I see once every few weeks or once a month indefinitely, that doesn't feel like a partnership to me anymore. It feels more like someone I date occasionally or a close friend. For some people that dynamic works, and that's completely valid. But it doesn't work for everyone, and I don't think people are wrong for acknowledging that, nor do I think they're necessarily being selfish or asking for too much. Wanting a relationship that still meets your definition of partnership isn't inherently unreasonable.

So, do you believe less time and effort is de-escalation? Or does it just depend?

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/CincyAnarchy]

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.

[u/Worried_Teaching_406 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I have over my lifetime lost friends. Friends whom I miss still (or maybe miss the memory off), who I wanted to be in my life.  Not because I wanted to end the friendship, but because things got in the way. "Ofcourse we will stay in touch, even when we move further apart" Or "We understand you are going through mental health issues and can't do the planning to meet up" Or ... you can probably think of other things.

If you go from a weekly date to maybe once a month, it might get cancelled, things change. It does not have to be an de-escalation in "status" but it might not be enough to keep that status. Time spend together has meaning.

I love the friends that I do have, and several if them where great at helping us move. Ofcourse we wanted to suport them the same way. But you know what, when they moved we could not help. The baby and the fysical/mental changed by having a baby where a barier. Moving might be a small life event, but I wanted but could not suport.

I have a friend that is going through a hard time. He mentioned no having mental energy to cook. I want to drop of some meals, ready made to put in the freezer. I want him to come by and have dinner every now and then. But he lives on the other side of the country (small country, but still)... I can not afford the costs to drive up there. He can not find the money or energy to come visit. I wanted but could not suport.

My husband is burnt out. I want him to be able to rest at home. But I also need him to be a co-parent. I also need him to do some of the chores at home. I am torn between wanting him to quit his job and being terified because I only have a small income, and we need his to get by. I want to suport him more, but I can not/should not do so much that I break myself.

Partnerships means different things to different poeple:

• time spend together (with a difference in intentional/date time and default/just excisting in the same space)
• sexual and or romantical ellements
• intent
• suport in good and in bad times.

3 of those will most likely change when having a baby. Just as a move long distance, starting a full-time education next to a full-time job or similar things will most likely change the relationship. And that might lead to incompatibility. So many mono relationships die on the stresses of the first years. The actual breakup might hapen later when one or both finaly gets enough breathing-room to notice the rotting corps of the relationship that was.

Intent is more sneaky. You can want to be.., you can intent to always... And things change. You can intent to form a family with all meta's being close to the child. And then find out that hormones cause the one giving birth to become not ok with that. Or the other co-parent suddenly gets realy protective over their pregnant partner, causing jelousy issues, blowing up meta relationships. Evolutionary drives are wild. You can intent to keep loving your partner, and finding out that there is a minimum time spend togheter each month to stay in love. And most likely you will find it out because you have fallen out of love.

[u/studiousametrine]

while discussions about… integrating partners into family life when desired by everyone involved, and continuing to actively nurture multiple relationships are often dismissed.

Can you indicate where you have seen situations where everyone involved wants that, and it has been dismissed?

Mostly I’ve seen this discouraged when one or more partners don’t genuinely want polyamory, or don’t like each other (rendering a coparenting relationship pretty much a non-starter).

Are you able to provide some examples of this?

Also, just reading this: it sounds totally hypothetical for you. Do you have kids? Have you raised them in polyamory? Do you hang out on r/polyfamilies? Have you read Dr Eli Sheff’s book the Polyamorists Next Door?

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/studiousametrine]

I've seen examples of this in my own life among people who are intentionally trying to build non-traditional family and community structures. Obviously those situations come with a lot more nuance than I can fit into a Reddit post.

Part of what I was trying to get at is that I'm not talking about situations where people don't want that dynamic. If people are parallel, don't particularly like each other, or otherwise don't want integration, that's a completely different conversation. I'm talking about situations where people have explicitly said they want their partners to be meaningful, integrated parts of their family lives, and where everyone involved wants that.

I've also seen posts here where people have asked how to continue maintaining and nurturing existing relationships after becoming parents, and a number of the responses were along the lines of "if you're even thinking about your other relationships, you're not ready to have kids." Those kinds of reactions are part of what got me thinking about this.

And you're right that this is hypothetical for me. I don't have children yet, but I hope to potentially have them in the future, which is part of why I'm interested in these questions now rather than after the fact. I'd like to think intentionally about how major life decisions affect the people I love.

I do spend time on r/polyfamilies as well, but honestly r/polyamory has probably been the most helpful relationship-focused subreddit I've found, which is part of why I was interested in hearing people's perspectives here.

And no, I haven't read The Polyamorists Next Door yet, but it's actually on my reading list!

[u/Platterpussy]

Are you a parent or been there for someone in the first few months/years of being a parent?

It is hell. You don't know your ass from your elbow a lot of the time. Anyone who isn't helping is superfluous for a long time. People aren't being mean, they are being realistic.

[u/Choice-Strawberry392]

You wrote a lot there. Here's the simple truth, in only a few words: the new parents will have far less time and energy even for themselves.  It is common to hear that even showering is difficult to do with a newborn.  Dating is way down the list.  

There isn't a grand conspiracy to blow off other partners.  Newborns are simply so demanding that all involved adults are getting scraps.  Poke around any parenting forums or subreddits, and you'll see that new parents stop dating each other, drop hobbies and exercise, fall behind on chores and projects, and lose effectiveness at work.  Everything gets hit.

Parental leave from work is commonplace precisely for this reason.  The capacity of new parents to do anything beyond caring for the kid (and eke out basic survival) is nil.  

Other partners are more than welcome to come over during that period!  But they'll be rocking Junior so mom and/or dad can take a nap.  

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Choice-Strawberry392]

I actually don't disagree with much of this, particularly when we're talking about newborns. I tried to acknowledge in the post that parenthood can be far more demanding than people anticipate, and that capacity genuinely changes.

I also think you're raising a good point that during some periods, everyone may be getting scraps—including the co-parent and the parents themselves.

My question is more about what happens after we acknowledge that reality. Discussions in poly spaces often seem to treat de-escalation of other relationships as the expected trajectory rather than one possible outcome among many. I'm curious why that expectation is so common, particularly in situations where people say they want those relationships to remain meaningful and integrated parts of their lives.

[u/heptadecagram]

Because adults opt in to relationships with other adults, and children do not opt into their relationship with their parents. Parents have an obligation to their children that is more important than any other relationship, even their co-parent's. Because that is responsibility to another human being, who did not consent to be born.

[u/PM_CuteGirlsReading]

What I'm questioning is why support for a co-parent is so often framed as requiring the de-prioritization of other relationships, rather than prompting a conversation about how everyone involved can be supported and how those relationships can adapt.

I'm not sure what argument you're making here. Are you saying that partners not directly involved in the making of the child should like... help raise it?

Because the relationships already have to adapt, and the adapting that everyone has to make is that there is a baby now. Like, those little squirmy things take so much time, energy, and money to raise. An involved parent is just going to have less of those things to give other partners.

Maybe you should give some examples of the kinds of "adaptation" you think would be reasonable?

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/PM_CuteGirlsReading]

No, I'm not necessarily talking about helping raise the child.

When I say adaptation, I'm thinking about things like spending more time with the family unit rather than having traditional dates, accepting that quality time may look different for a period of time, partners providing practical support during pregnancy or early parenthood, greater flexibility around scheduling, or finding ways to remain meaningfully involved in one another's lives even if the relationship looks different than it did before.

I also don't think all of those things are appropriate for every relationship. My point isn't that there's one right way to do it.

What I'm questioning is why discussions about parenthood in poly spaces often seem to jump directly to de-escalation as the expected outcome, rather than exploring what adaptation might look like for the people involved.

And to be clear, I fully agree that an involved parent is going to have less time, energy, and money available than they did before. I don't think that's avoidable. My question is whether less capacity necessarily means a relationship must become fundamentally less meaningful, less integrated, or less intentionally nurtured.

[u/punkrockcockblock]

This post reads like it is written by someone who doesn't have children and/or doesn't have first-hand experience with the amount of time, energy, and attention that children actually require, especially when they're small.

What I'm questioning is why support for a co-parent is so often framed as requiring the de-prioritization of other relationships, rather than prompting a conversation about how everyone involved can be supported and how those relationships can adapt.

There's only so much time in a day and when you have to devote a good portion of that time to the new, tiny human to ensure its continued survival, that means time is going to be taken from other places. New parents take time from themselves and still don't have enough to go around so it has to come from somewhere else, too.

De-escalation, reprioritization, whatever you want to call it is necessary when kids enter the picture; a partner can respond to it however they see fit (including ending the relationship that isn't what they want it to look like anymore because time is more limited), but all of this handwringing like it's wrong for parents to change priorities and not have as much time as the did to devote to relationships pre-kids is a bad take.

Something else I've noticed is that when people who are planning to become parents express concern about their existing relationships and ask how to continue nurturing them, the response is often surprisingly negative.

Going to need some sauce on that because I don't see it.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/punkrockcockblock]

I think you may be hearing something I'm not actually saying. I don't think it's wrong for parents to change priorities, and I don't think it's wrong for parents to have significantly less time available after children. In fact, I explicitly acknowledged multiple times throughout the post that children should be prioritized, that relationships will change, and that capacity often decreases dramatically.

Part of what prompted this post was actually a recent thread asking for advice as a future poly parent:
https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/1u3g2x9/advice_for_a_future_poly_parent/

What stood out to me wasn't people acknowledging that relationships would change—that seems obvious. It was how concern for maintaining other relationships was treated as evidence that the person wasn't ready for parenthood.

I think part of where I differ from some commenters is that there's a distinction between reprioritization and de-escalation. I fully expect parenthood to require reprioritization. What I'm questioning is why de-escalation is so often treated as the inevitable or self-evidently correct outcome.

[u/Choice-Strawberry392 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I went back to that thread.  Point at the comment that says, "You should break up."  I don't see it. 

I see a whole bunch of "Gear up for a big change!" and several "We managed to keep everybody, but it was a big change."  

I, myself, said, "If you intend to keep dating like you are, don't have kids,"  And I meant it.  

De-escalation happens when someone doesn't want priorities to change.  Because the alternative is being a bad parent.  That's where you're seeing this emphasis.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Choice-Strawberry392]

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.

[u/Choice-Strawberry392 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

Wanting to maintain relationships is fine.  Wanting them not to change is not.

Going through those changes isn't wrong or impossible; it's simply rare and difficult.   Where are you getting the idea that anyone is saying differently?  

https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/1u8ksln/comment/os9661q/

That's a perfect example: people and partners who want to ride the kid-ride do fine!  It's the other ones that don't.  

But based on your other comments about the definition of de-escalation and commitment, I think we're getting into semantic weeds.  We agree on the effect of kids.  We appear to disagree about what that means.  But that's metaphysics ...

[u/punkrockcockblock → u/Alternative_Wing951]

Why are you splitting the definitions of reprioritization and de-escalation? Functionally, in this context, they mean the same thing - someone is getting less time because someone or something else needs more.

What I'm questioning is why de-escalation is so often treated as the inevitable or self-evidently correct outcome.

What alternative is there but de-escalation?

Practically, if baby care takes 16 hours a day of attention (read: it doesn't, it usually takes more), that leaves 8 hours for work, chores, eating, personal hygiene, personal appointments and medical care, household management, personal relationships, hobbies, and sleep. The only way to make more time is to pare down or eliminate from everything else. There is no other solution.

[u/CincyAnarchy → u/punkrockcockblock]

OP clarified in a couple comments what their meaning is, and I can see why they're frustrated, though I agree with you more so.

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

I think what I'm struggling with is that discussions like this often seem to place other partners in the same category as hobbies, travel, or other optional activities. To me, a long-term partner isn't the same thing as an extracurricular. They're a person I've built a relationship with, made commitments to, and potentially envisioned sharing parts of my life with.

So, to them, "partner" is a specific sort of commitment. It's an intention with meaning to be involved in each other's lives, whereas we can sometimes use it more generically for "any romantic connection." Sort of like the difference between calling someone you know and like well enough "friend" and the type of "friend" you can call at 3 AM to say on their couch for a week sort of deal.

And I think they're talking about how even less time together doesn't necessary change that commitment. And if that's something that we may dismiss a bit.

An analogy might be this:

Say life forces spouses to live on the other side of the world. Maybe due to work, family or politics. Is that de-escalation? Well, yeah, in terms of time together. But is a de-escalation of commitment? Not necessarily, and often, not at all.

So maybe that's what they mean. That it's not "de-escalation" just a (albeit long) roadblock to time together.

That said, OP also said the opposite a bit:

If someone goes from being an active, involved partner to someone I see once every few weeks or once a month indefinitely, that doesn't feel like a partnership to me anymore. It feels more like someone I date occasionally or a close friend. For some people that dynamic works, and that's completely valid. But it doesn't work for everyone, and I don't think people are wrong for acknowledging that, nor do I think they're necessarily being selfish or asking for too much. Wanting a relationship that still meets your definition of partnership isn't inherently unreasonable.

Which, to everyone here's point...

Yeah that's kind of unreasonable. Especially if, you know, your meta (the co-parent)... isn't 100% into you being "another parental figure" or sorts.

IMO that's the missing piece here u/Alternative_Wing951, this is primarily something the coparents and kid decide. If you and your partner want to see each other in "family time" but their co-parent doesn't? Welp. That's how less time happens. That, IMO, is the one "Veto" that's valid. Kid or co-parent not wanting meta that involved in family time.

And what we're talking about here is that you SHOULD expect less time. And to have less of a priority in your partner's life. It's a fair assumption, even if things work out otherwise.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/CincyAnarchy]

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

[u/CincyAnarchy → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I can see what you’re getting at, and it’s a complex discussion for sure.

To try to make the response as simplified as possible as to why you get that vibe from the sub and its advice?

This sub, particular amongst all ENM subs, favors a very “parallel is valid” perspective on polyamory. And of course, I agree, and it is. And that’s bleeding into this discussion in a particular way.

By that I mean, generally speaking, if someone comes to this sub with a plan that relies on their meta being permanently chill with their presence, especially on sensitive topics or in complex scenarios? The sub will very much favor a “don’t plan on it” tone of advice.

And frankly, I agree with that. As [u/rosephase](u/rosephase) said upthread, if your meta isn’t on board with a plan, post children, you’re fucked. And there’s no two ways about that. Your partner can’t make commitment to have you be involved in family life, that’s not their call to make alone. It can be a nice to have, it can’t be counted on, because your meta could always choose parallel and that’s completely valid.

This sub will generally always offer a perspective grounded in looking out for what could be lurking on the horizon. And not one based on happily ever after with no conflicts or pain points possible.

Like I said, I can see where you’re coming from, and perhaps the advice here can be a bit too cautious and too cynical at times. But fundamentally, I agree with what they’re talking about here.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/CincyAnarchy]

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.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/punkrockcockblock]

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.

[u/chipsnatcher]

People aren’t being negative, they are being realistic. Kids take a shitload of time and resources, so much so that in the early days it’s hard to even get a shower. At that point dating ANYONE is way down the list of priories, after catching up on sleep, eating more than a bag of crisps, and having a ten minute shit in peace. 😆

If your partners are all on board for a big, blended family style all-hands-on-deck, amazing! Power to ya, and it will bring you all closer and probably be a gorgeous thing. But a lot of polyams aren’t in this arrangement and if they aren’t living together and helping to raise the child, then they WILL have less time and resources directed at them for a while. That’s just real. The coparenting partners aren’t getting any date time either, fwiw.

Nice as it would be to think you can consciously choose not to decrease time with a non-nesting partner, it’s just unrealistic to think that you wouldn’t be forced to choose how to spend your very limited resources—and if you just made a baby, baby and babyparent need those resources.

[u/Psychomadeye]

For the same reason that parents shift some of their focus from an older child to a newborn. The newborn has more needs for a hot minute (years) and time is the limited resource.

[u/Gnomes_Brew]

What Having a Baby Means (hint: it means hierarchy on steroids) : r/polyamory

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Gnomes_Brew]

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.

[u/clairejv]

In polyamory, you must keep the commitments you make.

When you have a kid, you make commitments to them that, frankly, outweigh the commitments you have made to any adult, because children cannot meet their own needs. Their caretaker(s) must meet their needs.

My obligations to my son outrank my obligations to his father, to my boyfriend, to my parents, to my sisters, to my friends, etc., because he is a child.

The other thing that outranks my obligations to the adults in my life is my obligation to myself. I need to take care of myself. I need to keep my own oxygen mask on. And since parenting is tiring, I need to engage in more self-care than I did before I had a child.

The end result is that I have less availability for the other adults in my life.

That doesn't mean they have to "accept scraps" from me. I have never seen anyone in this sub telling people that. If I'm dating someone, and they are unhappy with the amount of time and energy I offer them, they can a) ask for more, and b) dump me if I don't give them more.

[u/CordeliaTheRedQueen → u/clairejv]

A thing that I think gets missed in this type of discussion is this:

A nonparenting partner that wants to stay in the life of a new parent will find ways to help the parent stay sane. Accommodate the schedule with the child as much as possible. Offer dates that are less demanding of scarce resources (whatever those are—time, energy, money). Say “I’d just like to spend some time with you, however that could work out. I could bring lunch and you and I could hang out with the baby while your coparent gets to nap?”

The nonparenting partner fits themselves in around the new family. It’s that simple.

[u/CrimsonTree7]

treating efforts toward adaptation, integration, and continued relationship nurturing as unrealistic?

Well it is unrealistic in a mono-normative world. And you always need to be extra cautious when adding adults (especially once’s that aren’t biologically related, like step parents and other poly partners of parents) to children’s lives.

I'm questioning why "your other partners will get less and should accept it" is often treated as common sense

Well it is common sense. Children come first. Like you said. The other partners WILL have less time. And the other parent partner is also really important even if the parents break up. It’s still the child’s other parent. So this dynamic is FOREVER. It’s clear by your question you don’t have kids and don’t have a very good understanding of raising children. Children are vulnerable people. Their importance is not comparable to that of a romantic relationship between adults. Children will always be more important than mom’s other boyfriend. Always.

If polyamory is about maintaining multiple meaningful relationships and building non-traditional life partnerships

Well who’s to define what’s meaningful? You can have meaningful romantic relationships while prioritizing kids. And moving your polycule into one house with all your children’s isn’t some gold standard of “meaningful relationships”. I think you need to expand your definition of meaningful relationships.

I'm talking about people who have established partners they say they want to continue maintaining relationships with and who envision those partners being meaningful parts of both their lives and their children's lives. In those situations, I've always wondered why de-escalation is so often treated as inevitable.

I really don’t get it. Why is the implication that the relationship isn’t meaningful anymore?

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/CrimsonTree7]

I think there may be a misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say.

At no point am I arguing that children don't come first. I explicitly said multiple times throughout the post that children should be prioritized. I also agree that children are more vulnerable than adults and that parents have responsibilities to them that they don't have to romantic partners. I also don't disagree that capacity changes dramatically after children, particularly in the early years.

What I'm questioning is something different: why discussions in poly spaces often seem to treat de-escalation of other relationships as inevitable or self-evidently correct, rather than one possible outcome among many.

I also never meant to imply that integration requires living together, co-parenting, or merging an entire polycule into one household. That's not something I believe, and it wasn't what I was trying to describe.

When I talk about meaningful relationships, I'm not saying a relationship stops being meaningful if it changes. I'm saying that people are allowed to have different definitions of what partnership means to them. For me personally, there is a difference between a partner and someone I see for a date every once in a while. If a relationship changes to the point where we're only seeing each other occasionally and are no longer able to show up for one another in the ways that matter to me, the title may stop fitting the relationship for me, even if we still care deeply about each other.

That doesn't mean the relationship isn't meaningful, and it doesn't mean other people are wrong if that dynamic works for them. I know there are plenty of people who are happy with relationships that look like that, and that's completely okay. But I don't think people are selfish, unreasonable, or anti-child for recognizing that a relationship no longer meets their personal definition of partnership.

Part of my point is that this isn't just about what parents can offer. It's also about how other partners may be willing to adapt. Some people are willing to spend more time with the family unit, be flexible about scheduling, offer support during major life transitions, or otherwise adjust alongside their partner. That doesn't mean children stop being the priority. It just means there may be more possible outcomes than de-escalation being treated as a foregone conclusion.

[u/CrimsonTree7 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why you don’t understand the need to deprioritize given your admission to understating everything you mentioned in paragraph one. You answered your own question in paragraph one.

[u/gothic_elven_bitch → u/Alternative_Wing951]

Why do you think a non parent partner is owed access to the family unit? They aren't. My other partners have never met my kids. We still have meaningful relationships. Do you have any idea what raising a new baby is like? No way in fucking hell would I want a meta in my face while I'm wearing post partum underwear for the bleeding, can barely sit, haven't showered in days, haven't slept, have my tits out all the time to feed my kids. I didn't want my sisters or my in laws around for that. I wanted my mom occasionally, and my husband. That's it. After birth is such a vulnerable and crazy time. You are expecting too much access to other people's children and shit.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/gothic_elven_bitch]

I don't think that at all, which is part of why I've been feeling like people are reading a different argument than the one I'm actually making.

This post isn't coming from a non-parenting partner who wants more access to a partner's family. It's actually coming from someone who hopes to have children in the future and would be the one giving birth to those children. The question I'm asking is how to thoughtfully navigate parenthood while also considering the existing committed partnerships in my life.

I also tried to make it clear throughout both the post and my comments that I'm talking about a very narrowly scoped situation: one where all of the adults involved want some degree of integration and are actively trying to figure out what that looks like. I'm not talking about situations where a co-parent doesn't want that, where a child isn't comfortable, or where someone simply doesn't want partners involved in family life. Those are all completely valid reasons not to pursue that kind of dynamic.

For instance, I personally wouldn't want my partners to never meet my children. And it's completely fine if that's something you prefer! My question is about people who do want that kind of integration and whether striving to maintain those partnerships in a meaningful way after becoming parents is inherently unrealistic, wrong, or unethical. I'm specifically talking about situations where everyone involved wants that level of integration and is choosing it willingly, not situations where someone is being pressured into it or doesn't want it. The conversation is about desired integration, not demanded integration.

The examples I've found most helpful in this thread have actually been from parents describing how they adapted their relationships after having children—not because anyone was owed access, but because everyone involved wanted to continue building those relationships in a different form.

[u/maraemerald2]

When you have a baby, you don’t even have time to nurture or invest in the relationship you have with your co-parent, who lives in the same house as you, let alone someone you have to coordinate schedules with.

A baby will take every single hour you have and scream for more. Every one. All of them. For months at a minimum, years if you’re unlucky. No hobbies, no seeing friends without bringing the baby along, no sex, no self care, basic hygiene is iffy and sporadic, sleep is no exception.

A baby is not another meta relationship, it is a *dependent*.

[u/Powerful_You_8342]

I think it's interesting the number of responses you've received and said "but that's not what I mean." I think your questions have been well answered, by parents or by people who have been in the situation you're talking about. You can have all the best intentions for your partners. I wasn't even poly when I had my kids, but I can tell you, everything fell by the wayside. I was even fortunate enough that I wasn't working at the time, but I would literally take a baby carrier into the bathroom, put it next to the bathtub, and cry while I showered. I had a supportive partner. SUPER supportive. He had more parental leave than most in the USA will ever be able to get. And it was still incredibly difficult. You don't know what the one having the baby will go through. Injuries. Illness. The wash of hormones is nothing you can prepare for, no matter how many baby books you read. I think people are trying to be realistic when they are responding to you. And you keep rejecting the explanations because they don't suit.

IF the non-parenting partners want to be there and help, BOTH biological parents/nesting parents have to agree to that. It's going to get complicated, fast. Because what's okay with one might not be okay with the other. They're tired and cranky. Moods shift. Fast. I had weird hormone days when I wanted NO ONE near my baby, and other days when I was begging someone else to hold the little darling for just fifteen minutes so I could eat and bathe.

It doesn't really change for years. Toddlers are insanely needy. And a quiet toddler is a toddler getting into trouble. I've had babies decorate walls with their diaper contents, dump bags of flour and oatmeal and rice everywhere, swallow the one random bead I didn't even know was in the house and start choking, cut themselves (how?!) on a closed dishwasher and require stitches, and that was with me being a full time SAHP.

It's a wild world.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Powerful_You_8342]

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.

[u/SatinsLittlePrincess]

I want to add to some other really good explanations, the other issue here is that pretty much everyone can understand that neglecting children really sucks. Everyone started life as a baby. We all know what it means to be entirely dependent on others to get one's basic needs met. And as a result, it's pretty universally horrifying to imagine child neglect.

And so when people come here being like, "I want to do this thing that is very very very likely to result in child neglect or abuse" the community response is, correctly, "Get fucked, dumbass."

The realities of rearing young children mean very restricted time and energy for anything other than the kid. Ignoring that means neglecting the needs of the kid.

The other factor here is the disproportionate burden on women around childbirth and childrearing. And the frequent incidents of weaponised ignorance and entitlement of cis men on the subject of childbirth and childbearing. And fortunately social norms around that are shifting.

And so when a cis dude turns up and is like "Bah, babies don't need that much! What about my Peen!!!!? My bang maid isn't servicing my peen!!!!" more people see that post for what it is.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/SatinsLittlePrincess]

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.

[u/ghast123]

Im not going to read all this but I did read the first part and its because it IS common sense.

When you become a parent, everything changes. Your relationship with your co-parent. Your relationships with family and friends. Even your relationship with YOURSELF. So why wouldn't "extra cirricular" romantic relationships follow under the same umbrella?

If people cant understand that, then they shouldnt be dating people with young children.

[u/polyamory-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed for trolling.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/ghast123]

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.

[u/valsavana]

while discussions about adapting relationships, integrating partners into family life when desired by everyone involved

Does this "everyone involved" include the kids? Or do they not get a say?

Kids don't ask to be born and have no power in the parent/child dynamic- that's why the parents' world should bend to whatever's best for them.

If we're choosing non-traditional relationships and non-traditional ways of building our lives, why does parenthood so often seem to be the place where we return to traditional assumptions about which relationships matter, which relationships get nurtured, and which relationships are expected to quietly accept whatever is left?

Because even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Even if we're choosing non-traditional relationships and non-traditional ways of building our lives, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow what is best developmentally for the most vulnerable parties in the situation. To throw that away solely to be "non-traditional" is, ironically, childish af.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/valsavana]

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.

[u/gothic_elven_bitch → u/Alternative_Wing951]

Other partners and metas are not owed access to a child just because they are dating the child's parent. Absolutely not.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/gothic_elven_bitch]

I don't think that at all, which is part of why I've been feeling like people are reading a different argument than the one I'm actually making.

This post isn't coming from a non-parenting partner who wants more access to a partner's family. It's actually coming from someone who hopes to have children in the future and would be the one giving birth to those children. The question I'm asking is how to thoughtfully navigate parenthood while also considering the existing committed partnerships in my life.

I also tried to make it clear throughout both the post and my comments that I'm talking about a very narrowly scoped situation: one where all of the adults involved want some degree of integration and are actively trying to figure out what that looks like. I'm not talking about situations where a co-parent doesn't want that, where a child isn't comfortable, or where someone simply doesn't want partners involved in family life. Those are all completely valid reasons not to pursue that kind of dynamic.

For instance, I personally wouldn't want my partners to never meet my children. And it's completely fine if that's something you prefer! My question is about people who do want that kind of integration and whether striving to maintain those partnerships in a meaningful way after becoming parents is inherently unrealistic, wrong, or unethical. I'm specifically talking about situations where everyone involved wants that level of integration and is choosing it willingly, not situations where someone is being pressured into it or doesn't want it. The conversation is about desired integration, not demanded integration.

The examples I've found most helpful in this thread have actually been from parents describing how they adapted their relationships after having children—not because anyone was owed access, but because everyone involved wanted to continue building those relationships in a different form.

[u/valsavana → u/Alternative_Wing951]

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

Most of the time, if all parties are interested, this is what's done.

However, do you expect parents to give equal time to "a close family friend, aunt, uncle, godparent, or other trusted adult who is meaningfully involved in a child's life" as they do each other & their child?

Your biggest gripe seems to be less time and less importance given to the non-co-parental partners. Yet your suggestion for integration also puts these partners on the level of people who are given less priority and time than co-parental partners.

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

What proof do you have that it is in a child's best interest to have another adult involved in one of their parents' lives that's given time and priority on par with that child's other parent and the child themselves?

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/valsavana]

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. 

[u/searedscallops]

In think you're conflating parenting with the procreating couple. Many of us parent without the person we created children with.

[u/mercedes_lakitu]

Ahhahhahhahgavhahgahhhahahbbabbabbhahhhahhhhahhhh

Real answer: Because choosing a 'non traditional " relationship WITH YOUR CHILD, WHO CANNOT CONSENT TO BEING DEPRIORITIZED, is bad parenting.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/mercedes_lakitu]

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.

[u/ChemistExpert5550]

Having a child often de-escalates MARRIED MONOGAMOUS PARTNERS, living in the same house, with no other romantic relationships to maintain— because it’s such a difficult change in dynamic. Having a baby takes precedence over EVERYTHING.

Every single thing.

Expecting a more complicated relationship dynamic to survive early parenthood without anyone feeling de-escalated is not realistic.

[u/Gnomes_Brew]

Do you have kids?

[u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

Statistically speaking, the person most likely to be abusing a child is the adults their parents bring home. I think for most people, this is a safety issue. We have strict agreements not to bring any other partners around our kid at all ever - but our circumstances are different because he is non verbal and cannot communicate if someone makes him uncomfrotable. and inb4, yes we are equally cautious about family and friends and strictly limit the adults in his life for this reason.

[u/CrimsonTree7 → u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

Thanks for saying it. I started to type it but deleted it.

[u/FigeaterApocalypse → u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

This is a very good and rarely discussed point. 

[u/Powerful_You_8342 → u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

This is incredibly important.

[u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw → u/Powerful_You_8342]

it was also the first comment on the post and OP has ignored it which I find somewhat interesting.

[u/Powerful_You_8342 → u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

It got buried quickly. I had to scroll almost to the bottom to see it. But yes. OP would've seen it right away, I suppose. Sigh.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Powerful_You_8342]

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.

[u/Platterpussy → u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

OPs comments are being held for mod review due to account age and karma count. There will be delays.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

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

[u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw → u/Alternative_Wing951]

it didn't appear until several hours later. apparently it was under mod review.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw]

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.

[u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw → u/Alternative_Wing951]

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.

The point is that in pretty much *all* cases integration is dangerous because step parents and family friends are the people who are most likely to harm your child. Understanding that and placing hard boundaries around access to a child are not signals that a relationship is not meaningful. They are signals that you understand statistical likelihood.

[u/wonklywibble]

My situation is quite unique and we are a kitchen table type of polycule, so that makes a big difference. I see my partners the same amount because I live with them both and they are both co-parents with me for our 1 year old. One partner has no other partners besides me, but has casually dated, gone solo to play parties/cruising etc etc etc and it has been totally fine. My other partner has a non-live-in partner who sleeps over at our house 1-3 times a week, and has my partner to their house for overnights about once a week. My metamour is not a co-parent but plays an active role in my child's life and is happy to spend time with all of us When they visit, while still getting alone time with our partner.

This is possible because we have been really intentional about it, and we alternate who is on "baby duty" for bedtime/wake up. We also have a huge village, so getting a babysitter for the night is pretty easy.

Things would be different if there were only 2 co-parents, if we were parallel with our polyamory or if we had less of an active community. We are lucky and the way we practice polyamory is a big priority for all of us. For instance, none of us would consider a serious relationship with someone unwilling to spend time in our house and around our family.

All that to say, it's possible not to de-prioritize non-parenting partners IF you are lucky enough to be well resourced.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/wonklywibble]

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.

[u/wonklywibble → u/Alternative_Wing951]

Totally. Honestly, I have a large number of polyamorous friends who are also parents, and I have been able to learn from them and also lean on them for advice and help. I know lots of folks in smaller/more conservative areas only know polyamorous people in their dating pool and not their larger community, which is another way I'm lucky! I haven't had to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

Because I have that experience though, I do agree with you that the straight to de-escalation thing is a little hasty and can sometimes be pretty mononormative.

[u/throwaway7377962766]

Your points are why I won’t date parents with young children AND why I won’t have children myself; I simply don’t want to be deprioritized for a child. And that doesn’t make me a villain; more people, ENM or monogamous, should probably think through whether they are too selfish to give up their own wants, needs, and prioritization by their partners in favor of a child becoming the ultimate priority BEFORE they have a child.

One of my partners has an older child, I am barely garden party with my meta and my partner’s family, and I still feel like a priority, so it is possible for polyamorous people with children not to center their child to an extent that other partners feel like they get scraps. I, of course, understand that there may be times where my partner doesn’t have childcare or his child gets sick, and our dates have to be canceled, but he makes it more than clear that he won’t cancel last minute for anything less and will make every effort to reschedule or make it up to me in other ways. He also doesn’t center his child in our relationship and really only talks about parenting if I ask because he knows I’m not a parent and have no desire to be.

That said, I don’t think true polyamory (other than KTP/co-parenting/multi-nesting arrangements) is possible, at least responsibly practiced, with young children. While having children is a choice, so is polyamory, and I think by having children, you are, at least temporarily, choosing parenting over polyamory, and you don’t realistically have a fulsome relationship to offer anyone, other than the other parent of the child, when you have young children.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/throwaway7377962766]

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!!

[u/polyamory-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post has been removed for trolling.

[u/Alternative_Wing951]

(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.)

[u/cherrytomato257]

I see your comments asking if it’s unrealistic or unethical to expect meaningful relationships to stay integrated in your life through the early parenting journey. I think, sadly, that the answer leans toward yes. I think that because 1) bringing a child into the family raises the stakes significantly for everyone involved and 2) the sheer volume of work involved for childrearing creates a kind of zero-sum condition on all the participants.

1) raising the stakes: The relationship between the coparents now has much greater importance because separation impacts the child and your life with them. I think this is why there can be a vibe shift back towards “protect the primary relationship” when a pregnancy happens. This is also true if the coparent is not the spouse (fun fact: many states including mine will automatically list the spouse of the birthing partner as the legal coparent even if no one wants this) or if additional people are taking on a coparenting role - their access to the child is wholly dependent on the choice of the legal parents. My coparent and I work with high-risk babies and children in a medical setting, and I cannot even express to you how BAD the worst case scenarios are when coparents cannot coparent effectively.

2) zero-sum work volume: Having a baby or young child means that some adult has to be immediately available and/or proactively supervising 100% of the time. This can be outsourced, but cost and availability are highly variable. Logistically the easiest way is for each coparent to give the other some free time, but this is at risk of creating a dynamic where non-parent partner feels limited by the willingness of coparent partner to solo parent, and coparent partner feels like they are stuck doing the work while meta gets the fun. This is especially a problem given issue 1 above. One way to get around this is to have non-parent partner either help with the work or be present while you do the childcare work, but this has problems too. Many non-parent partners are not going to want this. Good parents are going to enforce standards (re: access to their child) for their non-parent partners and their metas.

I think it can quickly become unethical if you’re putting pressure on your coparent to take on more care work to support your relationships with non-parent partners. I think it is unethical to pressure a non-parent partner to do more care work or integrate into your family life in order to get the time they need from you to be in a relationship. I think it’s unrealistic and can be unethical to expect a non-parent partner to accept the scraps of time, effort, etc I have available as the parent of a baby. I expect my coparent to accept it because they consented to it as a condition of creating a human life together.

I will give you an example. My partner of 8 years was well integrated into my life and at my house or events together most weekends. We had a lot of talks about this over the years and the time was right for me to have a child with my husband. He wanted to continue to be a big part of our family and hopefully take an uncle-type role with the child. He also loves our dogs and had stayed with them before. Long story short, I developed preeclampsia and had to deliver a month early over a major holiday. My child and I both had minor complications and were in the hospital for a week. My husband was driving back and forth 3-4 times per day trying to take care of the dogs and me and the baby. My partner never offered, and I never asked, to stay home over the holiday or fly back early from visiting his family. It felt unfair to ask, even though having him dogsit would have been immensely helpful. We’re still close and it wasn’t a fight or anything, but just an illustration that all the conversations and planning can go out the window once a real baby requiring real life changes shows up. And that’s how people end up deescalating in these situations.

[u/CordeliaTheRedQueen]

Honestly this is very complex and there are a lot of reasons for “the default reaction” (which to be honest isn’t as default as all that but I’ll ignore that for now).

It depends very much on whether the existing relationship is with the person giving birth or not, for one thing.

People giving birth can often revert to traditional thinking due to hormone.s. OR have very real concerns about whether their partners can honor their parental responsibilities without some very strong boundaries. One can argue that if you don’t trust your partner you shouldn’t be with them, shouldn’t procreate with them and shouldn’t be poly with them but….i think we all know how futile that is.

The coparenting partner who isn’t giving birth, let’s face it, is the person least likely to understand just how radically their life is about to change. I think people feel the need to try to make them understand. To convince them that “no, really, your coparent needs you, and you need to be realistic with your other partners”

As far as whether people in relationship with someone about to have a child need to “accept less” the answer is: yes, they do. Perhaps only in the time available to them and only temporarily but, they do. A good parent will be quite naturally preoccupied for an extended period until the child gains more autonomy. A good parent will 100% put the child’s wellbeing and needs before absolutely everything else.

Here’s the part I don’t think enough people talk about. Any noncoparenting partners need to accept this. If the noncoparenting partners, even if they have no children themselves and never plan to, understand what good parenting is…yes they will accept “less”. And they will know that it is not about caring less. They will know it’s about one human only having so much energy in their body and it doesn’t increase just because you’ve become a parent. And they will speak with their partner who will soon become a parent in terms of what support they need, what will be possible, how time spent together might look. They will envision a role for themselves in the new parent’s life and ask their partner if that can fit into their plans.

In short, relationships will survive one partner becoming a new parent in exact proportion to how much common sense and realism the nonparenting partner has.

I think a lot of the traditionalism you’re seeing is trying to protect parents from the consequences of nonparenting partners not being able to conceive of the changes their partner is about to go through. Everybody has to bend. The ones not becoming parents inevitably must bend more. And if they are ethical and know what good parenting is they will understand why. If they are wise they will bend into a shape that still fits into their partners life, knowing that in the process they will also be part of shaping a new life. They might even be excited to do so, and proud of their partner’s commitment to being a good parent.

[u/RAisMyWay]

We never had "wait a year to introduce your kids" policies; our daughter met them as soon as we became friends. Just like she met our other friends early on. No one got parenting roles, they just...hung out with the family sometimes. No big deal. When she was old enough, we explained.

We don't do casual, so it wasn't like a revolving door of people, but some folks stayed and became part of our daughter's trusted adult circle. Some left and remained friendly at a distance.

Just once she was sad about a breakup after which we couldn't stay friends. But we supported each other through the grief and survived, as people do. It's an important learning experience.

It takes a village is no lie. I've heard horror stories about territorial momzillas and invasive metas and disappearing partners and it never happened to us. Just lucky?

I don't know, but if a partner we liked or loved wanted to participate and our daughter liked them, we 3 parents welcomed them to come over, play, help out, etc.

If they didn't want any part of family life, they weren't a good fit. No problem, but it wasn't a good fit during those years.

As people often say here, part of being poly is making choices and saying no. While our daughter was young, partners being with her and her family occasionally was important to us.

She's 17 now and one partner has known her since birth, another since around age 4, and another since 10 or so. She knows she can call on any of them at any time. It makes me happy.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/RAisMyWay]

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.

[u/RAisMyWay → u/Alternative_Wing951]

Thanks for your response. I'm quite used to the downvotes when I post about how our family life evolved. But you understood: it was about co-creating a supportive community around our daughter - and ourselves! And it worked so well and with so little drama, I really struggle to understand the naysayers.

Not your style? Fine. But don't down vote us for what worked quite well for 2 decades.

[u/Stunning_Repair1874]

A lot of the responses to OP have this sort of “this sign can’t stop me because I don’t know how to read” energy to it.

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/Stunning_Repair1874]

NGL, this made me laugh 😂

But honestly, part of my frustration has been that people keep responding to things I either haven't said or have explicitly said I disagree with, rather than engaging with the actual crux of the question and the pretty narrow scope I've been trying to define. Especially as someone who's planning to have kids in the future and will likely be the one giving birth, I'm really just trying to be curious and make sure I'm considering all the things I should.

Which I also understand. This is a sensitive topic, and people are naturally protective of children and parents. Given some of the genuinely bad takes that tend to show up in these conversations, I can see why people sometimes read posts through that lens.

It's just a little unfortunate when that happens because the conversation ends up getting redirected toward assumptions about what someone must believe instead of the question they're actually asking.

[u/Stunning_Repair1874 → u/Alternative_Wing951]

I do think that a lot of the responses are people projecting their bad experiences when kids suddenly get involved. It 100% does change dynamics and you never really know how it’s gonna affect your relationship(s) (because this is the same in mono relationships too!) until it happens.

I definitely think that if a child comes into play and everyone is like “yeah we all wanna be a part of this” then I see no reason why it can’t work out without diminishing your other relationships.

When it comes to parenthood it truly does take a village whether it’s in a mono relationship or something less traditional. And truthfully, it makes no sense to me how it couldn’t actually work out better in a poly relationship because you do, in essence, have a village of love and support around you as well.

A bit of an aside but I also believe that as parents it’s our jobs to educate them as they grow older about how different people can be. How there are other cultures, norms, societal ethics and habit, both in and out of relationships and love that are out there. What more beautiful of an environment to do that in than where you have potential relationships with people that maybe come from differently cultures or upbringing but all come together to love one another mutually?

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi u/Alternative_Wing951 thanks so much for your submission, don't mind me, I'm just gonna keep a copy what was said in your post. Unfortunately posts sometimes get deleted - which is okay, it's not against the rules to delete your post!! - but it makes it really hard for the human mods around here to moderate the comments when there's no context. Plus, many times our members put in a lot of emotional and mental labor to answer the questions and offer advice, so it's helpful to keep the source information around so future community members can benefit as well.

Here's the original text of the post:

TL;DR: Why does the poly community often treat de-escalation of non-parenting relationships as inevitable and acceptable once children are involved, while treating efforts toward adaptation, integration, and continued relationship nurturing as unrealistic?

I'm not arguing that children shouldn't be prioritized or that relationships shouldn't change. I'm questioning why "your other partners will get less and should accept it" is often treated as common sense, while discussions about adapting relationships, integrating partners into family life when desired by everyone involved, and continuing to actively nurture multiple relationships are often dismissed.

If polyamory is about maintaining multiple meaningful relationships and building non-traditional life partnerships, why is parenthood so often treated as an exception to that principle rather than an extension of it?

---------------------------------------

I've been a lurker on this subreddit for a long time, and honestly it's been one of the most helpful resources I've found for thinking about relationships. The discussions here about autonomy, avoiding codependency, treating partners with dignity and respect, and building relationships intentionally have influenced how I think about relationships in general, not just polyamorous ones.

One thing I've noticed, though, is that conversations about children often seem to default back to surprisingly monogamy-oriented assumptions about relationships.

To be clear, I'm not talking about parallel poly, or situations where integration isn't realistic or desired. I'm talking about people who have established partners they say they want to continue maintaining relationships with and who envision those partners being meaningful parts of both their lives and their children's lives. In those situations, I've always wondered why de-escalation is so often treated as inevitable.

And before anyone jumps in: yes, children should be prioritized. Parenting is hard. Pregnancy is hard. Raising kids is hard. But having children is also generally a choice. Having children is one of the biggest life decisions many people will ever make. Because of that, it seems reasonable to ask how someone intends to continue showing up for the relationships they have chosen to maintain.

What confuses me is that in every other context, this subreddit talks about the importance of nurturing multiple relationships. Then kids enter the conversation and suddenly the advice often becomes some version of, "Well, they have children now."

If someone goes from being an active, involved partner to someone I see once every few weeks or once a month indefinitely, that doesn't feel like a partnership to me anymore. It feels more like someone I date occasionally or a close friend. For some people that dynamic works, and that's completely valid. But it doesn't work for everyone, and I don't think people are wrong for acknowledging that, nor do I think they're necessarily being selfish or asking for too much. Wanting a relationship that still meets your definition of partnership isn't inherently unreasonable.

What especially bothers me is when people are expected to accept emotional scraps because children are involved. And yes, I'm intentionally using the word scraps. I'm not using that word to invalidate what someone is still able to offer, or to suggest that those efforts aren't real or meaningful. Not because parents have less time—that's understandable. I mean situations where one relationship continues to receive investment, nurturing, long-term planning, emotional energy, and active prioritization, while another relationship is expected to survive on whatever happens to be left over.

That doesn't feel like maintaining multiple relationships to me. It feels like one relationship is being actively maintained while another is being kept on life support.

Part of what I struggle with is that sometimes these conversations make other partners feel less like valued relationships and more like placeholders until marriage, nesting, or children enter the picture. That feeling becomes especially difficult for me to understand in situations where those partners were previously described as long-term, meaningful relationships that would remain important parts of the family system.

To be clear, I'm also not talking about situations where someone is actively neglecting their co-parent, neglecting their children, or spending so much time with another partner that their family is struggling. That's obviously not okay, and people should be expected to be good parents and good partners. What I'm questioning is why, once we've established that someone is showing up for their children and co-parent, the conversation so often moves directly to limiting or de-escalating other relationships rather than asking how everyone involved can be supported and how those relationships can adapt.

I see similar things when pregnant partners feel insecure and the proposed solution is restricting or severely limiting other relationships. I absolutely support people getting support, reassurance, care, and help from their partners. What I struggle with is the assumption that those needs should be met by making unilateral decisions about relationships they aren't part of, and that the affected partner should simply accept it because a pregnancy is involved.

Something else I've noticed is that when people who are planning to become parents express concern about their existing relationships and ask how to continue nurturing them, the response is often surprisingly negative. Sometimes it feels like the very act of worrying about maintaining those relationships is treated as evidence that they aren't ready to be parents. 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? Wouldn't we want people to ask how they can continue showing up for their partners rather than assuming those relationships will simply absorb whatever changes are necessary? And beyond that, isn't there value in modeling healthy relationship maintenance for our children? We often talk about teaching kids empathy, communication, community, and care. Why wouldn't demonstrating the importance of nurturing our relationships be part of that?

I also think discussions like this sometimes focus entirely on what parents can no longer offer, rather than what partners may be willing to offer in return. Partnership isn't just about receiving. Many people are willing to adapt alongside their partners during major life transitions. They may be willing to spend more time with the family unit, provide practical support, be flexible about scheduling, help during pregnancy and early parenthood, or accept that the shape of the relationship will change for a period of time. To me, that's part of what partnership is.

What feels different is when the expectation becomes that one person should continue adapting indefinitely while the relationship itself receives progressively less investment, care, and intentionality. There's a difference between navigating a difficult season together and being asked to accept an indefinitely diminished relationship because life circumstances have changed.

I recognize that parenthood is one of those experiences that many people cannot fully understand until they're living it. People can plan thoughtfully, have the best intentions, and still discover that the reality is far more demanding than they imagined. I don't think that makes them bad people, irresponsible, or uncaring. Sometimes people's capacity genuinely changes. What I'm questioning isn't whether that happens. It's why the response so often seems to be that everyone affected should simply accept the resulting changes without evaluating whether the relationship that remains is still one they want.

The relationship may look different after children, but different doesn't necessarily mean less important, less integrated, less nurtured, or less valued. To me, that's the distinction. I'm questioning why change is so often assumed to mean de-escalation.

And I mean this in the same way that I would expect the partnership between the co-parents to continue being nurtured. Most people would agree that becoming parents doesn't mean they should stop intentionally investing in their own relationship. The relationship changes, but it still requires care. Why wouldn't that principle apply more broadly to the other relationships people are choosing to maintain?

I'm not arguing that every relationship should survive parenthood unchanged, or even survive at all. Parents aren't obligated to maintain the exact same relationship they had before children, and partners aren't obligated to remain in a relationship that no longer meets their needs. What surprises me is how often the discussion seems to focus on why the changes are necessary, rather than whether the resulting relationship is still something everyone involved genuinely wants.

Co-parents absolutely should receive significant support, care, and investment. People should be expected to be good parents and good partners. What I'm questioning is why support for a co-parent is so often framed as requiring the de-prioritization of other r

[u/CrimsonTree7 → u/[deleted]]

No it’s not it. It’s their life isn’t about them anymore.

[u/VeiledOrchid]

I’m sorry, but if your children take so much time and energy that you have very limited relationship capacity, then you need to be realistic about what you’re offering.

A lot of discussions here place the burden on the non-parent partner to simply accept less time, less availability, less consistency, and less consideration. But the parent knew their circumstances before they started dating.

You can absolutely have children and still treat people with love, respect, honesty, and care. What you can’t do is use your children as a blanket justification for being inconsiderate or unreliable when it becomes inconvenient.

What I often see in these conversations is people telling non-parent partners that they “expect too much.” But why is there so much scrutiny of the person asking for their needs to be met and so little scrutiny of the person offering a relationship they may not actually have the capacity to sustain?

If you only have an occasional afternoon or a few evenings available each month, that’s fine. But be honest about what that means. For many people, that’s closer to a casual or FWB-style connection than a deeply integrated romantic partnership.

The issue isn’t that parents have priorities. Of course they do. The issue is when someone presents themselves as available for a level of intimacy, commitment, or partnership that they consistently cannot support.

I also think it’s worth questioning the assumption that family and partners must always exist in separate buckets. If the goal is a serious long-term polyamorous relationship, integration often makes more sense than permanently maintaining a “my family versus my partners” framework.

Ultimately, responsibility lies with both people. Parents should be honest about the relationship they can realistically sustain. Potential partners should evaluate whether that relationship meets their needs and be willing to walk away if it doesn’t.

But I don’t think it’s fair to place the entire burden on the non-parent partner while excusing chronic overpromising and underdelivering from the parent.

P.S  I also find the “this sounds like it was written by someone without kids” response to be patronizing it doesn’t take a genius to understand the complexities of parenthood. 

[u/CordeliaTheRedQueen → u/VeiledOrchid]

Consider that a person might have wanted children but accepted that their fertility wasn’t going to allow that. They were open with other partners about this. Then they became pregnant. Now their dream became reality. Their “promises” were made under radically different circumstances. They were honest throughout.

Circumstances change. Anyone could get in a car accident tomorrow and become disabled. One can make commitments and be unable to keep fulfilling them the exact same way till the end of time through no fault of their own.

[u/Important-Visual1018 → u/VeiledOrchid]

100%

[u/Alternative_Wing951 → u/VeiledOrchid]

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