Something troubles me about the poly philosophies we've encountered on Polyamory.com lately. Let me try to explain it in context.
My older brother has been a regular (monogamous) guy. Then his (then) wife cheated on him (with an older guy -- a politician in fact, what a shock right). I don't know the details but they ended up getting divorced, and my older brother ended up with a lot of damage (emotional, legal, financial, etc.).
Recently, I have been outing myself to my brother. I have been telling him that I've become polyamorous, and what that means. Since he is new to the idea of polyamory, I assured him that one of the most important tenets of polyamory is that it can't be done unless all the adults involved have full knowledge and give full consent. My brother strongly agreed. What possibly hurt him the most about what his ex-wife did is that she didn't bother asking for my brother's consent.
In my perspective, consent is one of the pillars (or the prime pillar) holding polyamory up. It's the one thing that makes polyamory a valid relationship model.
Recently, I told my brother about this website. So it is possible that he may pay us a visit (probably as just a lurker). I'm nervous about what he may find, because I don't think we're consistent!
If we encounter someone who's in my brother's shoes, we tend to say, "Don't let her do it unless she gets your consent! She's just trying to cheat and manipulate you into giving your consent. Tell her you have conditions that must be met too!"
But, if someone posts who's in my brother's ex-wife's shoes, we tend to say, "Don't let him rule your life by the withholding of his consent! If you need poly to make you a happy person, you tell him that's how it's gonna be, and he can divorce you if he wants!"
And I'm asking, are we upholding the necessity of mutual consent like we should? How do we define the difference between a marriage in which consent is needed, and a marriage in which consent is not needed?
I have helped myself to some cinnamon Jack Daniel's, so I may not be presenting my case very well. But my question is, how to we tell the difference between a situation that requires consent, and a situation that does not require consent?
Was my brother wronged when an affair was had without his knowledge and consent? If so, how do we tell that? How do we tell if it's a situation where consent is not required?
Does that make sense?
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
My older brother has been a regular (monogamous) guy. Then his (then) wife cheated on him (with an older guy -- a politician in fact, what a shock right). I don't know the details but they ended up getting divorced, and my older brother ended up with a lot of damage (emotional, legal, financial, etc.).
Recently, I have been outing myself to my brother. I have been telling him that I've become polyamorous, and what that means. Since he is new to the idea of polyamory, I assured him that one of the most important tenets of polyamory is that it can't be done unless all the adults involved have full knowledge and give full consent. My brother strongly agreed. What possibly hurt him the most about what his ex-wife did is that she didn't bother asking for my brother's consent.
In my perspective, consent is one of the pillars (or the prime pillar) holding polyamory up. It's the one thing that makes polyamory a valid relationship model.
Recently, I told my brother about this website. So it is possible that he may pay us a visit (probably as just a lurker). I'm nervous about what he may find, because I don't think we're consistent!
If we encounter someone who's in my brother's shoes, we tend to say, "Don't let her do it unless she gets your consent! She's just trying to cheat and manipulate you into giving your consent. Tell her you have conditions that must be met too!"
But, if someone posts who's in my brother's ex-wife's shoes, we tend to say, "Don't let him rule your life by the withholding of his consent! If you need poly to make you a happy person, you tell him that's how it's gonna be, and he can divorce you if he wants!"
And I'm asking, are we upholding the necessity of mutual consent like we should? How do we define the difference between a marriage in which consent is needed, and a marriage in which consent is not needed?
I have helped myself to some cinnamon Jack Daniel's, so I may not be presenting my case very well. But my question is, how to we tell the difference between a situation that requires consent, and a situation that does not require consent?
Was my brother wronged when an affair was had without his knowledge and consent? If so, how do we tell that? How do we tell if it's a situation where consent is not required?
Does that make sense?
Sincerely,
Kevin T.