Consent: What if it's Not Required?

Re (from Inyourendo):


Yeah if poly has already been established in the relationship ... hmmm.

Re:


Well if it's a question of ethics, I can understand that position. Something might not be good (healthy) for me but that doesn't necessarily mean doing it is a breach of ethics. Hmmm, unless how well I take care of myself is an ethical consideration? So confusing.

Okay okay, next time I won't drink the whole bottle of port. Sheesh.

Re:


Oh Jeezh, even the kids?

I would go to court if summoned of course. My ex was trying to bully me into giving him full custody of our younger son and I told him he was welcome to petition the court if he wanted to but I doubt they would give him full custody of one of our kids when I was willing to do the 50/50 split we had established in our parenting plans
 
Re:
"I told him he was welcome to petition the court if he wanted to but I doubt they would give him full custody of one of our kids when I was willing to do the 50/50 split we had established in our parenting plans."

Whew ... it's good to have parenting plans.
 
I dont care how other people choose to operate their relationships, i take offense to the statement that one partner is unethical if they don't stop being poly at the demand of the other. it doens't work that way, you don't get to call your partner a cheater because they have another relationship that you agreed to because you decide you don't want them being with anyone else. you don't like it then leave. it's absurd to say that the poly person has to be the dumper.

I feel like you are not actually reading what I am saying because this is not an accurate reflection of what I said. Firstly, nobody who wants to be poly has to to stop being poly in this circumstance. It's just the poly person may have to "be poly" with people other than their current partner. I agree that "cheating" does not accurately describe any extra-marital relationship that continues during this time, however, I am less opposed to the term being used to describe a new relationship that starts during this time of established incompatibility. Finally, nobody said that the poly person has to be the dumper, I said there was onus on the poly person to either end the relationship or facilitate an amicable split if their unhappy partner initiates one.
 
Technically it makes sense, what I'm hearing, and I probably should have seen it coming, but, it seems surreal to me that consent questions have boiled down to questions of if, when, and how to break up. :eek:
 
Technically it makes sense, what I'm hearing, and I probably should have seen it coming, but, it seems surreal to me that consent questions have boiled down to questions of if, when, and how to break up. :eek:

Everyone has their idea of ethics. For instance Sam's ex wife left him for another man but then got back together with sam. He insists that she cheated on him by leaving to have sex with someone else but then getting back with him where i feel that because they were split up (although not divorced) that she was not cheating. she didnt think it was cheating and pretty much the rest of their marriage they fought about it. I guess there is a pretty big camp that thinks you should not have sex with others while separated but many others who think it's perfectly fine if they couple had no intention to reconcile
 
Hmmm. To me it doesn't seem like cheating to have sex with someone else while you're separated from your spouse, but maybe I'm too liberal about that.
 
Technically it makes sense, what I'm hearing, and I probably should have seen it coming, but, it seems surreal to me that consent questions have boiled down to questions of if, when, and how to break up. :eek:

Well, it's on the extreme end of nonconsent. I'd like to think that more consent questions work like a negotiation. At least, they have in my relationships. But a negotiation is boring in terms of dramatic potential. It's less fun to discuss in the hypothetical.

This fake conversation more closely mirrors the flow of consent and permission in my relationship with Guitarist:

"We can try polyamory, but I would be very uncomfortable if you started having sex with your girlfriend right away."

"Okay. Your feelings are important to me, so I'll hold off. But why?"

"I want to give myself time to get my feelings in order. This isn't a hard and fast rule, just let's talk about it later."

"Okay, I enjoy sex a lot and I'd like to have it, but I can live with that."

"I've worked through my feelings, and I think I would be fine if you had sex with her, but just not in our bedroom."

"Okay. That sounds weird. Why not?"

"Because the thought makes me anxious for no reason I can discern. It's the place I sleep. It has my smell in it. I don't want other smells there. I'm apparently very territorial about the bedroom. I wish I wasn't, but I am, and I'll work on it. So could you just ... not."

"Okay. It's valid that you struggle with that. This is inconvenient but we'll have sex in other places."

Or consent and permission in my relationship with Purr:

"I don't want to control your other relationships, but I want to know when you have them."

"Okay, why?"

"Because I'm worried about STDs and sometimes condoms or gloves or whatever breaks and if you're possibly exchanging fluids with someone, I will just be more comfortable having that information."

"Well, I'm not comfortable with that. How about I just tell you who I'm on that kind of level with, instead of every time I have a new interest?"

"That addresses my concern. We can do that instead."

I mean, there are a million places any one of us could have had a complete breakdown of consent and permission. But since we're reasonable human beings who care about each other, we stretch whenever possible to accommodate each others' needs. I think the breaking up would only happen if the needs are irreconcilably, diametrically opposed (ie, You're polyamorous but I need monogamy! I practice DADT, but you want to know when I'm having sex with other people! I need honesty but you cheated!).
 
I hope the following does not sound too pedantic and it certainly is not meant to sound negative, just descriptive of what I think is going on.

Again Kevin, I think what we might be seeing is the change in the perception of romantic relationships and marriage that has been coming to a head over the last decade or so, though it has been evolving since the idea of Companionate Marriage gained ascendancy.

Relationships do not depend much any more (in Western, urban societies) on the formation of interdependent economic partnerships with a division of labor by gender. They can be that way but it is not as central as it was. With child rearing no longer the expected result of sexual relationships and the extension of life meaning that child rearing may take up only half or less of a person's adulthood, the utility of life long vows of fidelity is greatly lessened.

So under the older paradigm the expectation was that marriage vows could not be broken or changed without dire possible consequences. When people wanted to fit their need/desire for non-monogamous but still committed relationships into the social set up they were raised in, the radical idea was made palatable by saying that marriage vows, or standard monogamous couplehood, could be amended, like any other contract, as long as both signatories consented. If not then the contract was still binding. So informed consent by all parties or no non-monogamy without incurring the standard penalties (emotional and legal) for Adultery.

With the increasing perception that marriage is quite likely not going to be for life and that emotional needs supersede rather than supplement economic/social needs when choosing to marry, the fall back position that lack consent by both parties means monogamy with the original partner, is being pushed to the wayside.

Now people are more willing and able to dissolve partnerships that are not emotionally satisfying and expect little in the way of penalties from society. So the definition of Polyamory has shifted to that standard. If both parties no longer consent to a marriage contract, either one can go to court and be granted a dissolution of the contract with no fault assigned.

The fact that many people are not signing legal marriage documents broadens the whole thing out still further from closed monogamy as the default position.

Well there is my 3 cents.

Leetah
 
Hubby and I operate similarly to the examples Autumn gives. Both of us prize honesty above most other things, and I've found in the past that if I try to keep something from him, I end up feeling so guilty I'm literally physically ill. Even though he teases me about talking things to death, we frequently talk about our agreements and situations, and I ask him regularly if the arrangement is still working for him.

With things about which he has a strong opinion, that opinion sometimes changes over time. For example, our initial agreement about spending a night with another partner was nope, no way, not ever happening. After I started seeing S2, I revisited the spending a night with another partner issue because some of the visits with S2 went late into the night and I didn't always feel safe driving home because I was too tired. I wasn't even necessarily negotiating for overnights, but I at least wanted the option of taking a nap at his place before driving home.

At that time, Hubby said, "Even though you visited Guy, you didn't actually spend a night with him because he was working overnights. I don't think I'm ever going to be okay with you spending a night with another man. That's my limit. No overnights. If you even fall asleep with S2 after sex, I don't want to know about it, and I would rather you not take naps there. I don't want to think about you sleeping--literally--with anyone but me."

I wasn't happy about it. I asked him if he would rather have me sleep for an hour or two at S2's and then come home, or try to come home and fall asleep at the wheel, and he backed off to "Okay, if you're that tired, I'll accept you napping there. But not in bed with him."

However, two months later, after S2's and my relationship had progressed to the point where I really wanted overnights to be a possibility, I brought it up again. "Honey, I know you've said you don't want me sleeping at S2's, but our relationship has reached a level where I would like that to be an option. I won't spend nights there when Country is home; I'm asking for the two Saturday nights a month when she's with her father." Hubby's only response was, "Sure, I don't have a problem with that." In only two months, his thoughts had shifted from being angry and upset about the thought of me even taking a nap at S2's place, to being completely okay with me spending two nights a month there.

After S2 and I broke up, I brought up the subject again so I would know in advance of finding another partner. Hubby said, "You spending nights at S2's turned out not to be a problem, and it didn't bother me nearly as much as I thought it would. So overnights can be a thing with anyone you want them to be, I would just like to know when you're doing it so I don't worry." Complete change from a bit over a year ago, and no longer limited to a specific number of overnights per month. We still agree that I won't usually be gone overnight if Country has school the next day, but even that is flexible if circumstances warrant.

That's why keeping an open line of communication is vital for polyamory, in my opinion. Because Hubby and I have that, nothing is ever fully set in stone; we're always able to go to each other with concerns or problems, or to renegotiate our existing agreements.
 
Last edited:
Good point, KC. All too often people come on here with problems caused by lack of communication. It amazes me when someone says they mentioned opening the marriage a couple years ago, said nothing more about it, then have a problem because someone jumped into something two years after the fact. Constant communication is key in any relationship. Then you don't get to the point of ultimatums.
 
At least not as often, right?

So, KC43, there are times when one partner asks for consent and the other partner says, "No," and the best solution is to wait awhile and revisit the disagreement later. You don't always need to break up, is what I'm saying.

Leetah, when you mention changes in how marriage is perceived, it reminds me that changes are taking place in general. For example, polyamory per se is gradually becoming an "accepted as normal" relationship model, so, consent for it is more likely in a greater number of relationships.

AutumnLeaves, I think you're saying that improved communication can also improve the chances of coming to agreements (rather than breaking up). Are people in general getting better at communication, do you think?
 
Back
Top