Daddy/Little + Platonic Babysitter = Poly?

[kawasaku]

Hello all,

 

I know there’s been a recent influx of polya posts recently but this one has me stumped because many people I’ve asked individually have different answers.

 

TL;DR:

Would you consider the dynamic of Daddy + Little + Platonic Babysitter to be a poly relationship? I have been considering this idea for several days and imo it would not, especially if the babysitter is only a temporary thing until Daddy has more free time to resume and also the keyword here is platonic.

 

More context:

Daddy too busy and I’m lonely lol. We are monogamous but I want to introduce the idea of having a CG to make up for what he lacks, hoping his pride doesn’t get hurt. Would like someone to check up on me throughout the day to make sure I’m doing alright and remind me to do things I normally forget to do and to enforce other CG rules and such since my Daddy is only available at night right now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Little kaiya]

I wont claim to be an expert on polyamory but based on my experiences, being in a happy polyamorous relationship and having discussed a lot with my partners I'd like to offer a perspective and a few thoughts.

 

A lot of people look for immutable and unanimous agreed upon definitions for polyamorous relationships and I'd like to suggest that even if they did exist they arent really useful. Queenjellybean has said it many times and I strongly agree, polyamory is choice. As such, to me then what matters most to me is not a use of the term or not but instead whether the people involved are all on the same page.

 

I'm not going to say whether the situation you described is or isnt poly because I'm not involved so my labeling of the situation is meaningless. What I will offer instead is something for you to consider.

 

To my Wife, Daddy and I, polyamory is about SOOOOOO much more than physical intimacy or sex. The emotional connection is a huge component for us. Even if the DDlg relationship with the other caregiver is platonic there is still a significant potential for an emotionally intimate relationship. The bond between a caregiver and a little requires a lot of trust and in our view emotional vulnerability. By introducing that emotional vulnerability it changes the dynamic from strictly platonic to something more.

 

There's also the element that you say the CG will be making for what your partner lacks. That opens the doors to the development of a significant emotional link that maybe isnt the original intention.

 

As a result, for us, we would not go there but we would view it as possibly becoming polyamorous, yes. Maybe not right off the bat but the potential would be too high so the three of us wouldnt go there ourselves.

 

As for it being temporary or not that doesn't change anything to us. Temporary or not, it's about the relationship and emotions involved, not the duration.

 

Ultimately, you, your partner and any potential CG would need to be on the same page and agree to mutual limits and rules. All I can really say is Communicate, Communicate, Communicate and do what is right for all of you, dont do something because random people on the Internet say it is or isn't poly or is or isn't ok.

 

Little kaiya

Edited May 10, 2019 by Little kaiya

[xBabydollx]

I've always understand poly to be someone with multiple romantic relationships. Since the babysitter is platonic, I don't think it is poly. Just like having a friend who looks after u. However, I do think with ddlg a strong emotional connection tends to happen, and with that romantic feelings can easily arise for either person, so it can very well run the risk of turning into romantic relationship. Just my opinion on it all.

[baby_k]

I have had two rels in same time, I have loved two in same time. However, I don't see myself as polyamorous for I can only see one person as my sexual interest. So, I would combine mental AND sexual love. If you can have those both with more than one person -> you are polyamorous ( simplified version ). As just loving more than one person is easy, loving in certain way is not.

[Little kaiya]