New and Confused

I've come across some things that I am either confused about or just plainly need more information about. I was hoping you could help point me in the right direction:

Monogamous Conditioning
Couples Privilege
Relationship Anarchy

I am new too, but these are my understandings:

Monogamous Conditioning: the assumptions that we make based on the fact that all our models for "healthy" relationships come from a monogamous viewpoint -- there aren't socially conditioned norms for poly relationships. Things like jealousy being a sign of commitment are ingrained in many people based on the model of monogamy that we are all socialized to accept as "normal."

Couples Privilege: related to monogamous conditioning, this is the status of coupledom as the preferred relationship structure. Many of these privileges are very well established and explicit -- we are only allows to marry one partner (at least in most countries), only allowed to put one partner on our health insurance plan, etc. Other privileges are more about societal expectations -- we are offered a "plus one" to a wedding or our spouse is specifically invited, but no other partners are expected to be invited as well; if you go to parent-teacher conferences, there are two "parent chairs" and if you bring an unrelated adult it would be a surprise; if I have to leave work early to travel for a funeral on my husband's side of the family, it would be acceptable....but if I had to do the same thing the next week for an emergency in my boyfriend's family it would start to look like I was taking advantage of my workplace; the fact that, if I told my workplace that I were pregnant, everyone would assume that the father is my husband and not my boyfriend. (I am not pregnant, by the way. This is just an example.)

Relationship Anarchy: I am still figuring out this one too, but my understanding is that it is the idea that all relationships have the potential to hold the same level of meaning in a person's life -- including on-sexual and non-romantic relationships. I am sure someone else can explain it better.
 
Another area you see couple's privilege come up is in attempts to form triads from existing diads, usually people who don't really know what they're doing. Often what happens is a couple will ask a third person, usually a woman, to "join" their relationship. They say, and perhaps believe themselves, that she will be treated equally. But as things progress, sometimes the couple starts making rules that exclude the third from certain activities. e.g. maybe the third can't have one-on-one sex with either of the original partners, but the couple can have sex together without the third. This is another form of couple's privilege, i.e. the "couple" in the relationship has more privileges than the third who joined the relationship.

The defining feature of relationship anarchy is that each person is an individual going about their business, owning their own shit, and having relationships with other individuals who are going about their business and owning their own shit. You don't attempt to make agreements or rules about what your partners do with other partners. So in contrast, a lot of people discover poly after already being married. They begin to explore this world, but their spouse may not be entirely on board with it all, so the exploring partner might agree to certain restrictions by request of the spouse. In relationship anarchy, no one makes requests about how you behave with others. None of that "I agree to only see my boyfriend twice a week" stuff, or "this restaurant is only for you and me." What you do when you're not with me is 100% your business. Just keep me informed of whether I need to worry about condoms, basically. They also drop a lot of the preconceived notions have about what kinds of privileges people get by virtue of dating someone. So for example, it's not uncommon for a guy's girlfriend to get shotgun, even if his best friend of 20 years is riding in the car. But relationship anarchists wouldn't take that for granted. Probably you'd have to call shotgun, because the best friend also doesn't have any special privilege.
 
Last edited:
I was confused about couples privilege and hierarchy and explored that recently here.

Relationship anarchy can be googled. I like this resource, which I think you've already read but will include it here incase someone new stumbles along your thread in the future.
 
All I get from reading about RA is something on the order of "you shouldn't even THINK of one relationship as somehow 'better' than another for any reason whatever."

I get the feeling that being an RA prevents one from also being (say) polyamorous, because such structures inherently limit freedom of thought & action -- certainly not anarchic -- & to choose such a label for yourself singles out that portion of your life & thus the people & relationships within it as special.

But I've only read like four articles, & it doesn't see like a fun puzzle to work out, so it's not a personal priority. :eek:
 
I was confused about couples privilege and hierarchy and explored that recently here.

Relationship anarchy can be googled. I like this resource, which I think you've already read but will include it here incase someone new stumbles along your thread in the future.

That first thread had so much in it. That plus answers here actually have me more confused. It appears both concepts are met with strong individual opinions.
Some of the responses make couples privilege sound like a dirt word and are entirely flippant about RA.

Dean and I are trying to figure out what we want, what we don't want is easier to nail down.
I want to be egalitarian. Sounds easier said than done. I'm not sure. I don't wanna mess this up, hurt anyone. RA sounds intriguing to me, but would it work for my situation?
Admittedly while Dean and I are getting our feet wet we do exercise a lot of control over one another and I AM afraid of damaging our relationship (even when the fact is that this has only improved it so far) So I do currently view our relationship as most important. I also haven't seriously involved anyone new, I'm sure that idea would change then. I can see applying the golden rule here, but also adding treating others the way THEY want to be treated.
Dean already brought up the idea that what if we wound up with a long term partner, how would health insurance work for them? It was a really sweet thing to bring up. We both want to give a love what they deserve, the lot of it. Why wouldn't we?

There's so much to straighten out.
I don't want to be guilty of bad poly behavior.
 
That first thread had so much in it. That plus answers here actually have me more confused. It appears both concepts are met with strong individual opinions.
Some of the responses make couples privilege sound like a dirt word and are entirely flippant about RA.

Dean and I are trying to figure out what we want, what we don't want is easier to nail down.
I want to be egalitarian. Sounds easier said than done. I'm not sure. I don't wanna mess this up, hurt anyone. RA sounds intriguing to me, but would it work for my situation?
Admittedly while Dean and I are getting our feet wet we do exercise a lot of control over one another and I AM afraid of damaging our relationship (even when the fact is that this has only improved it so far) So I do currently view our relationship as most important. I also haven't seriously involved anyone new, I'm sure that idea would change then. I can see applying the golden rule here, but also adding treating others the way THEY want to be treated.
Dean already brought up the idea that what if we wound up with a long term partner, how would health insurance work for them? It was a really sweet thing to bring up. We both want to give a love what they deserve, the lot of it. Why wouldn't we?

There's so much to straighten out.
I don't want to be guilty of bad poly behavior.

I can't speak to RA because nobody has been able to adequately explain it to me. For what it's worth, I think egalitarian is difficult to do if you are married and the other people aren't part of your household. Bluebird is a good example of an egalitarian household. I'm not sure if Kevin feels his situation is egalitarian or not. There is a woman here who splits her time evenly between two houses. I'm viewing egalitarian as equal in responsibility, not equal in love.

I don't think it's really all that important to understand the labels or try to fit within a label. When you are reading up on things pick and chose what might work for you and discard the rest. The important thing is to know what you want and convey that to your partners, as well as listening to what they want.
 
Some of the responses make couples privilege sound like a dirt word and are entirely flippant about RA.
FWIW, that's a passive-aggressive statement. :eek: (Like, "flippant" is popular in PA tactic; no idea why.)

And the verifiable REALITY of "couples privilege" DOES SUCK, particularly in a forum where people don't often take kindly to being constantly painted as immoral subhumans. I'd say that "dirt word" is getting off rather f*cking lightly, but opinion may vary. Are you proposing otherwise...?
 
Last edited:
That first thread had so much in it. That plus answers here actually have me more confused. It appears both concepts are met with strong individual opinions.
Some of the responses make couples privilege sound like a dirt word and are entirely flippant about RA.

Hi BathedInSalt - I've only been on this forum and in a poly relationship for a few months now - and that is only because my wife asked me to open our marriage to poly. Poly is still not my first choice - although I have become reasonably comfortable with our poly marriage. I believe that most of my discomfort with poly is due to cultural conditioning - so I have made it a point to give poly some serious study to offset that conditioning - Many hundreds of forum posts and web articles, several dozen podcasts, and six books (including the ponderous "More Than Two"). Having read all this - but still claiming only to have made a decent effort at gaining an overview of the subject - I come back to the first thing that I was told about poly by our openly poly friend - as being the only real rule -

There is no one right way to do poly. It's whatever you negotiate with your partners.

And, of course, implicit in the definition of poly is that it all occurs with the knowledge and consent of all involved - not so much a rule as just what it is.

Everything else is based on individuals' experiences and opinions - including the various books that propose to lay out a system of poly ethics. This is not to say that one cannot find a lot of great advice from these sources - and they do provide a whole lot of great thought starters and conversation starters that can be used in discussion and negotiation.

But none of it is gospel - including the couple privilege issue. As a matter of practicality, a married couple opening to poly will most likely exercise "couple privilege" - and it is only an opinion that this is not the "correct" way to do poly. Different strokes for different folks. As the couple evolves in their poly relationship, they will continue to refine and renegotiate their poly arrangement - or so it seems to me.

Virtually all would probably agree that it is important to be as fair as possible within the the established framework - and not to take advantage of others. This would seem to be a common morality - but if not - the issue is self resolving since those individuals are not likely to meet with a whole lot of success in the poly world.

My wife has a bf who is also married. We have a young daughter at home in our house with the mortgage. Her bf and his wife have kids in their home with a mortgage. My wife does give priority to our marriage and family - and he does the same with his - and we have worked out an agreement that allows her to have a relationship with her bf and to devote as much time and energy to him as is practical - he has done the same. In both cases, the marriages remain primary. This works for us and there is nothing wrong with that - opinions to the contrary are just that - opinions. Others practice poly in a totally different way - nothing wrong with that either.

So - just a few cents worth for the discussion. Al
 
I feel Al brings up a good point that may be obvious to more experienced polyamorists but was one that baffled me when I was newer to the concept. As we switch from monogamy to polyamory, it's natural to want to know what this polyamory thing is and how to do it right. We know the rules of monogamy, but we don't know the rules of polyamory. I feel that's where you come in, BathedinSalt - you're struggling to figure out the rules of polyamory.

Thing is, you can create your own rules in polyamory - it's done with the consent of all parties. True consent also includes a clause to allow renegotiation and even the possibility of withdrawal of consent, so the rules can also change. A lot of polynormative resources give one author's opinion on how to do poly and sometimes presents it with disregard to other versions of poly. Many resources also presume you're a white person with white person problems, white privilege, had a reasonably normal childhood and have no major personality disorders, psychiatric diagnoses or childhood traumas to deal with - so the resources present an optimal ethical way to do polyamory for someone who is psychologically similar to the author and who shares a similar world view. This is one issue I have with the book morethantwo, though somehow I find their website more accomodating (maybe because they have received feedback about this issue and the website is more updated to be more open to other styles of poly?). This same reason is why I prefer this forum - you see a lot of different relationship styles, what works and what doesn't work. You see some awful traumas and the results these have on relationships. This forum, is authentic and varied.

Finally, regarding couples privilege; I will propose a radical view. I will say that couples privilege works for some people and is fine in those situations, but fails horribly in some types of polyamory (failing, in my opinion, mostly with solo poly and relationship anarchy - just my opinion, which may change in a few weeks anyway). My preliminary thoughts on the subject are that monogamy is loaded with couples privilege as are most other forms of consensual non monogamy (swinging, friends with benefit, don't ask don't tell agreements). These other forms of non monogamy seem more common than polyamory too (at least in my area), and if couples privilege works for these forms of non monogamy, then bashing couples privilege reveals more about our own personal hurts than it does about the topic. I'm not defending couples privilege for all relationship styles - there are genuine ethical concerns around this that can burn those less privileged very badly (and there are so so many stories on this forum of such examples). But I feel that as a concept, couple privilege is required for stability in some non monogamous relationship styles, especially for those who feel more emotionally monogamous. If you want to pick a consensual non monogamous style that is more akin to swinging or friends with benefits, then you're going to have couples privilege - nothing wrong with that as long as everyone is on board, understands what it means and is consenting, I think. I say "I think", because I may be confusing couples privilege with hierarchy so maybe I'm using terminology wrong. Still figuring this out for myself. Happy to be corrected and to have my viewpoint changed.

Looking forward to what others think on this,
Shaya.
 
I think you guys are confusing couple's privilege with hierarchy. Or you are both defending couple's privilege because you haven't quite gotten to poly yet and are clinging on to that last bastion of monogamy.
 
Re (from vinsanity0):
"I'm not sure if Kevin feels his situation is egalitarian or not."

Yes, it is egalitarian. There is a legally-lawfully-married couple, plus me. Which may not sound egalitarian, but all three of us feel that it is.
 
As the couple evolves in their poly relationship, they will continue to refine and renegotiate their poly arrangementl
Actually, no.

Not in my experience, or reading, or speaking with others.

A couple that goes from monogamy to a three-person marriage has very little incentive to "refine" their previous relationship -- after all, they filled the position, with someone willing to buy the marketing pitch. Happily ever after, THE END, roll credits -- no other "continue."
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
As the couple evolves in their poly relationship, they will continue to refine and renegotiate their poly arrangement

Ravenscroft replied:
Actually, no.

Not in my experience, or reading, or speaking with others.

A couple that goes from monogamy to a three-person marriage has very little incentive to "refine" their previous relationship -- after all, they filled the position, with someone willing to buy the marketing pitch. Happily ever after, THE END, roll credits -- no other "continue."

Ravenscroft, my personal experience is very limited - and what you say may very well be true for the mono couple who has found their unicorn - so to speak - and constructed a "3 person marriage".

But I was actually speaking in a broader sense - after all, not all mono couples who open up to poly take that route. My wife has her bf - and we started with some initial agreements - but have made a number of modifications along the way - mostly minor to be sure - but refinements nevertheless. And I believe we would both be open to other adjustments if circumstances made them prudent.

But - I do get the point. In my few months here, I have seen a number of couples introduce themselves - say they are going poly - and now want to find a unicorn to make it so. I have read enough to know that most are unsuccessful in their quest, and for those that are - it is seldom as imagined - perhaps especially for the unicorn.

Al


__________________
 
Vinsanity wrote:
I think you guys are confusing couple's privilege with hierarchy. Or you are both defending couple's privilege .

From Veaux's "More Than Two" website:
polyamory, n.
The fact of having simultaneous close romantic relationships with two or more other individuals, viewed as an alternative to monogamy, esp. in regard to matters of sexual fidelity; the custom or practice of engaging in multiple romantic relationships with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned.
—Oxford English Dictionary, 2006

It was not my intention to defend the concept of couple privilege or hierarchy or any other aspect of the poly culture that has grown up around polyamory.
My intention was to point out to the OP that she needn't be bothered by any of these issues if they were concerning to her. These issues are just opinions about the best way to practice poly - but they are just that - opinions - neither right nor wrong - or necessary to be polyamorous.
The commonly accepted definition of poly is above - no mention of subscribing to the poly culture's Generally Accepted Poly Principles - just multiple loving relationships with the knowledge and consent of all involved. Reiterating what our open experienced poly friend told us at the beginning - there is no one right way to do poly - it's what you negotiate with your partner.

Having said this, I do think there is great value in reading about the experiences, conclusions, and suggestions of experienced polyamorists. They provide much food for thought and discussion points as we formulate our own guidelines with our partners.

because you haven't quite gotten to poly yet and are clinging on to that last bastion of monogamy

So, my wife is leaving tomorrow morning (after the kiddo leaves for her summer camp thing) to spend a couple of days with her boyfriend. I got the suitcase down from the closet for her, and helped her pack - as we discussed their plans - and I gave her my best wishes for a great time (sexually and otherwise). And as I helped her pack - we also discussed whether I should take my friend up on her offer to elevate things to fwb. Yeah.... I think I probably have a good start on getting a handle on this poly thing. Still not my first choice, but it doesn't mean I can't be comfortable and participate. You know - I might have been Lutheran, but my wife was Catholic and really wanted me to join the Catholic church with her - so maybe I did - and eventually got comfortable with it and even participated and enjoyed it - even if I still believed that Martin Luther was right all along. :)

And while I didn't take notes - I have seen it come up repeatedly in the poly literature and podcasts that it should not be assumed that poly is in any way superior to mono - just different. Now - we should get all the mono folks to be just as tolerant - but that might take a while.

A few more cents worth - best to all - Al.
 
My intention was to point out to the OP that she needn't be bothered by any of these issues if they were concerning to her.
Apologies... but that statement on the face of it runs really close to "you aren't really feeling what you're feeling" so I have to disagree.
These issues are just opinions about the best way to practice poly - but they are just that - opinions - neither right nor wrong - or necessary to be polyamorous.
Yes, truly. Mere opinion. Based upon decades of experience.
The commonly accepted definition of poly is above
Apologies again... no. There is NO such definition. I'm willing to provide at leat five others that are similar but vary significantly. (Veaux is NOT God.)
there is no one right way to do poly
True enough. And there are thousands of ways to do it wrong. The paths to avoid wrongness are few.
we also discussed whether I should take my friend up on her offer to elevate things to fwb. Yeah.... I think I probably have a good start on getting a handle on this poly thing.
And best wishes on that. The transition from mono/poly to poly/poly has broken up more than a few dyads.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, that's a passive-aggressive statement. :eek: (Like, "flippant" is popular in PA tactic; no idea why.)

And the verifiable REALITY of "couples privilege" DOES SUCK, particularly in a forum where people don't often take kindly to being constantly painted as immoral subhumans. I'd say that "dirt word" is getting off rather f*cking lightly, but opinion may vary. Are you proposing otherwise...?

I didn't mean to come off as PA, and no I'm not proposing otherwise. I'm just trying to understand things.
What I meant to convey is that there seem to be many definitions/explanations for the same concepts. I'm not assigning those differing definitions/explanations value.


I'll try to explain myself more clearly in the future.
 
You've all made me think, better than that you've aided discussion with Dean.
Thank you for sharing.
At the end of the day I just want to avoid hurting anyone.
I think that having as many discussions with Dean and as possible -knowing what we want- will be helpful. I think reaching some understanding of poly concepts will be helpful.
I'm also not so naive to think that with all this preparation I still won't end up getting hurt or hurting others, because after all we are talking about hearts here.
 
I fear that the OP's thread has perhaps been high jacked - and I apologize if so - nevertheless, I feel that I must reply to such a detailed response to my last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99:
My intention was to point out to the OP that she needn't be bothered by any of these issues if they were concerning to her.
And Ravenscroft's response:
Apologies... but that statement on the face of it runs really close to "you aren't really feeling what you're feeling" so I have to disagree.

The intention of the statement was in no way intended to discount anyone's feelings. The point was to say that for one to practice poly, they should not assume that they need to abide by others' ideas of how to do so - if they are not comfortable with those ideas. My belief is that there is great value in studying the concepts that exist in the poly culture (books, forums, podcasts, web articles, etc) - there is a lot to be learned and the opinions expressed do make for excellent food for thought and discussion points - but one is obviously not bound by them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
These issues are just opinions about the best way to practice poly - but they are just that - opinions - neither right nor wrong - or necessary to be polyamorous.
And Ravenscroft's response:
Yes, truly. Mere opinion. Based upon decades of experience.
Agreed - and I have posted in this thread and elsewhere that I think there is great value in considering the opinions, experiences, and conclusions of experienced poly folks - but they are not rules or gospel truth - and one is not bound by them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
The commonly accepted definition of poly is above
And Ravenscroft's response:
Apologies again... no. There is NO such definition. I'm willing to provide at leat five others that are similar but vary significantly. (Veaux is NOT God.)

I could not agree more with your last comment - I found Veaux's writing in "More Than Two" to be overly verbose and ponderous, and the tone condescending and dogmatic (nevertheless, there is a lot of great content in the book - that provides a lot of excellent viewpoints to consider - as well as discussion points for poly conversations. It probably should be considered a "must read" for those who choose to practice poly - in spite of its significant flaws).

And yes, there are a number of similar definitions available - my point was to define polyamory in my post - and to differentiate that from the culture that has grown up around it. I chose the one on Veaux's web site because he is so well respected in the poly community - and because the definition he uses is from the Oxford dictionary. It seems to me that the major points are that poly is about multiple partners in loving relationships (and we can add, by implication, the desire or openness to do so) and the knowledge and consent of all involved - and those were covered. It was those major points and not the exact wording that were my intent to convey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99
there is no one right way to do poly
And Ravenscroft's response:
True enough. And there are thousands of ways to do it wrong. The paths to avoid wrongness are few.
Seems awfully subjective to me - and who is to judge if it is the right way or the wrong way? It does seem to me that what is "the wrong way" for some, might be "the right way for others" - and what their individual value judgments and orientation entail.

And best wishes on that. The transition from mono/poly to poly/poly has broken up more than a few dyads.

Yeah, still gnawing on that one - and the advice from the more experienced is always appreciated. Al
 
Last edited:
Back
Top