problems I see with polyfidelity

Re (from Marcus):
"Fortunately though, the closer I get to living my authentic life, the fewer drawbacks I can identify."

I am thinking that what might be a drawback for one person, might not be a drawback for another person. This is why we have both RA and poly-fi, so that different people can avoid (for a price) different kinds of drawbacks. (Let me know if more explanation is needed.)

Re (from ArtemisHunt):
"If you think you can't trust your partner to behave right without rules in place, how can you trust them to follow rules? "

Well first off, I don't think we can 100% trust anyone, not even ourselves. (I could be wrong.) The idea behind having rules in place, at least in my case, is so that the odds are increased. If Snowbunny feels she can trust Brother-Husband 25% without rules, she may feel she can trust him 75% with rules. This seems to be the case. Either his behavior is influenced by the presence of the rules, or she feels like it's influenced, or both. Either way she seems to be significantly happier, which makes us two guys happier. (If I've explained this poorly let me know, I'm just kind of shooting from the hip.)

I used to be a piano teacher. One time, one of my adult students told me that, even though they might be able to learn to play without my guidance, they still valued my place in their life because knowing they'd have to answer to a teacher every week, motivated them to practice enough to learn at a decent rate. So in essence, they wanted to learn to play, but still might not learn to play without the shadow of a teacher (with the teacher's rules) active in their life. (Just another way I thought of to explain it).
 
Sorry, this is going off topic.

The statement written above, is well worded as a boundary.

I guess I honestly don't know what is wrong with their statement even from a relationship anarchy point of view.

I think the difference in our opinion might be in what we consider a healthy boundary to be. A boundary is central to me, it limits things in my life that I have identified as unhealthy, troublesome, whatever.

To illustrate the difference, let's start with the original statement:

"If you ever watch Sharknado 3, I'm leaving. It's a hard line for me".​

This is not a boundary, this is a rule of behavior. Someone watching Sharknado 3 is their own business. Even if the movie is somehow traumatic for them, the fact that other people watch it and enjoy (or just to torture themselves) is not their concern.

Alternatively:

"I absolutely loath Sharknado 3. I don't ever want to be in the room with it or hear about it. If you ever watch it near me or bring it up again, I'm leaving. This is a hard line for me."​

This is a boundary. It is not trying to tell someone what they can or can't do with their time, but what exposure they want to it themselves.
 
Re (from Marcus):
I am thinking that what might be a drawback for one person, might not be a drawback for another person. This is why we have both RA and poly-fi, so that different people can avoid (for a price) different kinds of drawbacks. (Let me know if more explanation is needed.)

Absolutely. The pain in the ass that I have to deal with in being independent is (usually) within the price range I'm willing to pay for the type of peace I get.

Our paths toward health and flourishing are quite different, but I expect the end goals look very similar when lined up with one another.
 
Marcus: Thanks for the explanation. If you can reliably say that you watching a movie is not influencing your partner in absolutely any way, than the distinction makes some sense. I agree not to dive into the nuances.
 
Well first off, I don't think we can 100% trust anyone, not even ourselves. (I could be wrong.) The idea behind having rules in place, at least in my case, is so that the odds are increased. If Snowbunny feels she can trust Brother-Husband 25% without rules, she may feel she can trust him 75% with rules. This seems to be the case. Either his behavior is influenced by the presence of the rules, or she feels like it's influenced, or both. Either way she seems to be significantly happier, which makes us two guys happier. (If I've explained this poorly let me know, I'm just kind of shooting from the hip.)

I used to be a piano teacher. One time, one of my adult students told me that, even though they might be able to learn to play without my guidance, they still valued my place in their life because knowing they'd have to answer to a teacher every week, motivated them to practice enough to learn at a decent rate. So in essence, they wanted to learn to play, but still might not learn to play without the shadow of a teacher (with the teacher's rules) active in their life. (Just another way I thought of to explain it).


On the trust worthy thing... I *think* I'm getting a way it can work? My reasoning is that if you can't trust a person to do the right thing, giving them a rule to make them do the right thing doesn't makes sense because following a rule is a right thing to do. How can you trust them to follow the rule? And a rule won't stop a person who isn't trustworthy. Further, if they break the rule, it's a bigger betrayal. It's like adding more responsibility and potential to get screwed all because you are afraid this person can't handle responsibility and will screw you!

I see this playing out as, "I don't trust my partner with a big thing that really matters, so I will make it very important to follow this smaller thing and somehow they can be trusted with that."

But what I think you are suggesting is that the rule adds a little more pressure to be good? That's what you meant by the percentages? Percent of trustworthy? Do you find yourself affected by rules that way?

You know, it's possible I've been looking at individuals as too black and white, as in "trust" or "don't trust" (and if I didn't feel I could trust them, I shouldn't be with them)

Another idea I had about the use of rules in a case like this.... (please note: I am not trying to accuse Snowbunny of anything or make assumptions about her motivations)

So let's say what she REALLY fears is that one or both of you might get carried away and use bad judgment if you got heavily attached to another woman. And in your poor judgement you will take actions that harm or threaten her relationship with you. So... If she makes a restriction on an earlier step and you make a mistake, it can be handled before it goes to a more painful place. Like, you'd have to make multiple bad decisions to really screw up instead of one. And the first mistake is more like an alarm that you've started a path to the truly dangerous part?

Do you think some use rules this way?

I can see it making sense... Especially for monogamy. I guess the main reason I wouldn't use that strategy myself is: by experiencing poly I've seen first hand that the relationships my partner have outside of me do not reflect on us or threaten us. No matter if it's friendships, family, or romance. What they do in their free time doesn't affect me. The only two people who can fuck up a relationship are the people in it. What makes it great is the time and energy invested, which is solely the choice of those two people, not outside forces.

I, personally, am not interested in having relationships with people who I can't trust to invest enough time, thought, and energy into keeping the relationship great and both our needs met. So, if I worried that my partner could be distracted by temptation or wasn't responsible enough to choose/manage commitments, I wouldn't be with them. If I had her hypothetical fear and really thought it was a reasonable fear to have? I'd leave rather than try to find ways to prevent it.

I understand that desire is a huge force, and my favourite quite is, "the Heart has its reasons of which Reason knows nothing". So I can sympathize with a person trying anyway.
 
Yes, that's my point. If they are actually of like mind, and it happens naturally, you don't need the rule. And if their mind changes and they do indeed want more? He is expected to refrain.

Example of me and one of my partners, Prometheus. Neither of us is looking for an additional partner (other than those we already have). If he DID find one, I'd expect him to tell me, we discuss, we'd meet, much like Kevin's process. it would be scary for me at this point in time, and I'm very content that we aren't going through that. It works for us now.

So we are functionally fidelity, but no rule because it's natural. If he no longer wanted that and wanted to sleep with another, scary though it might be, I wouldn't want to restrict him.

Edit to add: the rule doesn't make it more or less likely to WANT to remain fidelity, and if my partner no longer wants to be that way, I don't feel right pressuring them or restricting them.

Why do you view it as a rule more than an agreement?
 
Sorry, this is going off topic.



I think the difference in our opinion might be in what we consider a healthy boundary to be. A boundary is central to me, it limits things in my life that I have identified as unhealthy, troublesome, whatever.

To illustrate the difference, let's start with the original statement:

"If you ever watch Sharknado 3, I'm leaving. It's a hard line for me".​

This is not a boundary, this is a rule of behavior. Someone watching Sharknado 3 is their own business. Even if the movie is somehow traumatic for them, the fact that other people watch it and enjoy (or just to torture themselves) is not their concern.

Alternatively:

"I absolutely loath Sharknado 3. I don't ever want to be in the room with it or hear about it. If you ever watch it near me or bring it up again, I'm leaving. This is a hard line for me."​

This is a boundary. It is not trying to tell someone what they can or can't do with their time, but what exposure they want to it themselves.

I think you are picking nits.

Since I have no desire to watch Sharknado, I would be happy she is of like mind. I wouldn't think, "Well I don't like Sharknado, but no way in hell does somebody tell me what I can or cannot watch."

Now if it was The Walking Dead, I would have a problem with the fact she felt so strongly against it...because I enjoy it, not because she's telling me what to watch.

Now let's look at a more important issue. Instead of Sharknado, it's a Trump rally. I say if she goes to a Trump rally I am done. That's a boundary. You can say I am out of line, but I can't be with someone who is a Trump supporter. So perhaps your person can't stand the thought of being with someone who would watch Sharknado 3.


Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture.
 
I often hear that "fidelity is natural for us" and I can't help but think, "If that's the case, why the need for an agreement? Wouldn't it just happen naturally in the absence of an agreement?"
Yes, I think that might be central to my doubts as well.

What is it about "fidelity" that denies it to those in open (sexually &/or romantically) relationships? and if "fidelity" can exist anywhere in nonmonogamy, then what exactly is it -- other than being "closed" -- that sets polyfidelity apart?
 
I'm one of the people who keeps getting tripped up on the "rules vs. boundaries vs. agreements" thing. :eek:

To someone I'm close to -- whether a close friend or FWB or "partner" or whatever -- there's always been the right for one of us to say "it would bother me if..." or "it bugs me when...", & THEN we can discuss it.

Cyril Kornbluth once wrote that, in a sane society, there's three responses to a clear question: "yes" "no" "what's in it for me?"

If I find myself in a misalignment, the other might get defensive & say "if you don't like it, then tough luck 'cause that's just the way I am," or maybe "oh, heck, sory, it's nothing important to me anyway," or perhaps "what is it about this that would bother you? and bother you HOW, exactly?"

A rule that worked really well a few years ago might have since become horribly outdated & actively counterproductive... but like a law, a Rule tends to persist.

Every absolute that's introduced into a relationship is a fenced-off area that cannot be discussed, & even mentioning the presence of the fence is highly uncomfortable.

My goal is not to be a big unsympathetic meany toward those who think they're happy in their restrictions-- that's too easy to be worthwhile. But I do have a tendency to question the why & the how of things because everyone NOT in any specific clade or group or subculture would potentially benefit from a clearer understanding of the actuality.

And if more than a tiny handful of people gravitate toward a given label, I'd like to know whether they IN FACT actually do have clear agreement over (for starters) what the label means.
 
Re (from ArtemisHunt):
"But what I think you are suggesting is that the rule adds a little more pressure to be good? That's what you meant by the percentages? Percent of trustworthy? Do you find yourself affected by rules that way?"

In a way. What I've been calling a rule, in my case I see it as a request. I know it's something my partner wants, so I'm willing to abide by it. If nothing was requested of me, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd have to think about it. I guess having this rule gives me the convenience of not having to think about it. A dubious convenience I know but there it is. It's this thread that has led me to put some more thought into it, even if I haven't been able to explore it thoroughly yet. I'm still thinking about it. Which is actually a good thing.

Changing directions a bit, I'd like to talk about veto power. Something not used in my V, but something some people use. My first thought used to be that veto power doesn't really mean much, because anyone can say, "Stop seeing that woman or else I will leave you." With or without the veto agreement in place. But more recently, I realized that veto power isn't limited to that ultimatum, and there's a good reason why it might never come to an ultimatum. The reason being, the veto power isn't just a rule, it's an *agreement.* In fact it's probably a promise. If I agree to give someone veto power over me, I am essentially giving my word that I'll stop seeing "that woman" as soon as I am asked to, or, as soon as exercise of veto is declared against me. So not only do I have the end of my original relationship to worry about, I also have to fear for the soundness of my word. The assurance that I can be counted on to keep my word. Uphold my promises.

So much for veto power, the same principle applies to the rules that I follow in my V. They're not just weights stacked on me by my partner, say to keep me from moving too fast, they're not just prospective threats leveled against me, such as the fear that Snowbunny might break up with me, they're also (more importantly) decisions that I agreed to, ahead of time. If I break the rules, I break my word. For me that's a powerful incentive to abide by the rules. If I became dissatisfied with the rules, I would certainly negotiate for a change in the rules, rather than break the rules and then ask to be pardoned (or break the rules covertly). In that way, the presence of a rule does more than exert pressure by way of what someone else (e.g. Snowbunny) might do to me, it also exerts pressure by way of what I might do to myself; that is, tarnish the value of my word and call into question my loyalty to telling the truth. The rules can be renegotiated, but at least there's that process that has to be followed.

In that way, I am bound to the rules. But there's also the fact that I know it would probably hurt Snowbunny if I broke the rules, and I don't want to do that. Now if the rules rubbed against my grain, I might consider breaking up with Snowbunny. But that's not the case, the existing rules don't bother me -- even if I wouldn't have come up with those rules on my own. It's kind of like Snowbunny said, "Hey, would you be willing to do this and this," and I said, "Sure, that sounds agreeable." It's just that these requests were worded more formally, and assumed the shape of rules. Others might not call them rules. I only call them rules myself as a convenience, as I said they're more like requests. In my perspective. Strongly-worded requests, requests that might turn out to be deal breakers if push came to shove. I know what Snowbunny wants of me, and thence I choose to do it.

Re:
"If I had her hypothetical fear and really thought it was a reasonable fear to have? I'd leave rather than try to find ways to prevent it."

I think that's a good way to describe the difference in how you and I do things. You would leave, Snowbunny would try to prevent it. I don't see either way as being particularly right or wrong, it's just two different ways of doing things. What works for one of us probably wouldn't work for the other.

Interesting conversation.
Regards,
Kevin T.
 
I would also hope closing a relationship is more of an agreement then a rule. But maybe if the agreement cannot be re-discussed then it is a rule.

My reasoning is that if you can't trust a person to do the right thing, giving them a rule to make them do the right thing doesn't makes sense because following a rule is a right thing to do. How can you trust them to follow the rule? And a rule won't stop a person who isn't trustworthy.
I think you are missing one simple thing here, and that is the clarifying aspect of setting a simple well-worded rule. For people it might be difficult to "do the right thing" simply because a) they may not be entirely sure what the right thing is anyway, and b) because the partners are not in perfect agreement on what the right thing is. So you can very well mistrust the other to "do everything right" without an explicit rule on the table. I mean, even if both (or all) feel they want to be fidelitous, where does infidelity start? Are there exceptions where certain kind of behavior is actually acceptable?* That's IMHO something a good polyfidelity agreement should cover, and articulated clear and concise it's easier to follow.

Plus, there is the effect that Kevin mentioned (which I don't particularly like but can't deny) that a lot of people (maybe taught so from young age) tend to give more thought to outside give rules and their responsibilities towards others then to their own inner guidance and inner principles. We don't want to loose approval, our place in society (or in a relationship), and the tendency to obey rules of other people follows. Meaning that a person actually can be better in following rules than (for the lack of a better word) moral guidelines.

Edit: Love Kevin's last post about giving your word explicitly adding more weight to your decision. That's actually much more positive than the effect described above :)

*Maybe I'm the only one here, but I can imagine still calling a relationship polyfidelitous it the desire for another person comes up once in a blue moon. Or that they usually prohibit touch with others but make a tantra seminar an exception. Or even swinging.
 
Last edited:
For us "rules" are not about trust. We trust each other already. We have agreed to exclusivity not because we don't trust each other at all. It represents what we desire our poly relationship to entail. It is what we are able to bring in other words. We all have limits of what we desire or are comfortable with in various situations. To go outside those limits would make the group no longer functional. It is simply our definition of who we are.
 
Now let's look at a more important issue. Instead of Sharknado, it's a Trump rally. I say if she goes to a Trump rally I am done. That's a boundary. You can say I am out of line, but I can't be with someone who is a Trump supporter.

I totally get this. In exactly the same fashion I could never be with someone who is a Clinton supporter. Suffice it to say you and I would never find ourselves in the same poly group...LOL.
 
About the " rule" vs "agreement" thing....
Agreeing to abide by a rule doesn't make it less a rule! I would expect you to agree to the rules. In fact, if you have rules you didn't agree to in a relationship, you have bigger problems.

By making it a rule, it becomes cheating if break it. It's restriction of a behavior, something you aren't allowed to do even if you want to, think it's right, etc.

I only want my partner to be fidelity with me if he/she wants to, a resounding yes. There are ways to communicate what would make me uncomfortable without a rule that obligates you to continue that form even if you don't want to.

Example:
I'm saturated and no desire to find another partner right now. I'm really glad you don't, either. Actually, where we are now I'd be pretty uncomfortable if you got a crush or involved with another person. It would be scary and hard, I'd be afraid of you not having enough time.

Not a rule: I've got to tell you if it happened, I'd need to talk about my feelings more, need a lot extra love and a lot if reassurance that our relationship won't suffer. I don't want to hold you back, but I'll trust that you'll consider me and my increased needs during that time. I'll trust that you will keep me updated on that possibility so I don't feel blindsided and that we will work together to get through it.
I do hope it doesn't come to that anytime soon, but if it does, here are some things that will help it go smoother (list actions like Kevin has such as meeting partner soon)

This article has a few more examples of the approach I'm talking about.

I think you say what you want and what you need FROM another person, not FOR. You say what you will do, not what they will do. It's up to them to figure out if and how to provide that, and their free time is their free time.

I think trying to protect a relationship (or minimize discomfort) by controlling outside forces and behaviors is the backwards and least effective way. A relationship is a reflection of what is put INTO it, not what is going on around it.

My partner doesn't remain faithful and committed because of lack of opportunity/temptation. That's what poly shows.



Piano thing... Totally different. You aren't restricting behavior or even making a rule. What you are doing is taking steps to compete a goal. Learning piano is comprised of many smaller steps of practice and lessons. Effective goal making involves breaking down the large goal into smaller goals that are planned and are achievable, measurable, specific, time sensitive, and reasonable. You know, that "SMART" acronym.

Super different from making a rule to maintain fidelity. Especially since the piano lessons are working TOWARDS a DESIRED outcome, while the rule seeks to AVOID a FEARED outcome. I'd like it if more relationship solutions were more like goal setting: focused on working towards a good place rather than trying to prevent a bad one.


Ah, the veto. Can be its own thread. I agree with your distinction that it needs the promise/rule to really play out. Without it, you could just be voicing your concerns.

Related to that....


I also get puzzled why we think it's ok to make rules about this type of threat and not others, and veto romance but not others. What about those with an overbearing controlling parent? A career with a nightmare boss sucking they life and time from them? A mooching best friend with issues who mistreats them?

All these pose the same level of risk. All these provide the same justifications commonly cited for employing the veto. (There's even a poster venting here now whose partner's grown daughter is impacting the romance.) But do any of you think you have the right to tell your partner to cut out their mother, brother, childhood friend? Change jobs or drop out of school to protect your relationship? Quit their sport?

I doubt it! You tell them what you think, make suggestions, focus on your relationship and finding ways to keep it going and minimize the impact. You let them make their own decision and trust that they will still make the choices needed to keep your connection healthy.
 
"Well I don't like Sharknado, but no way in hell does somebody tell me what I can or cannot watch."

This kind of interest in control over what I do with my own time and energy is a red flag and it's highly unlikely that this would not cause an issue. The fact that I'm not concerned about losing what they want to restrict doesn't change the fact that there is a control issue (or possibly just a trust issue) at play that I shouldn't ignore.

Now if it was The Walking Dead, I would have a problem with the fact she felt so strongly against it...because I enjoy it, not because she's telling me what to watch.

That thought experiment is not related to what is being discussed. That's why I picked something that I *don't* care about. Right?

Now let's look at a more important issue. Instead of Sharknado, it's a Trump rally. I say if she goes to a Trump rally I am done. That's a boundary. You can say I am out of line, but I can't be with someone who is a Trump supporter. So perhaps your person can't stand the thought of being with someone who would watch Sharknado 3.

Again, this is not a relevant example. I'm getting the feeling that you and I are not having the same conversation.

Someone going to a radical political rally (on either side of the spectrum) very likely comes with a whole host of worldview differences that would absolutely come in to conflict with someone who has opposite views. The rally itself isn't the issue to me - I'm not their dad, they can do what they want with their time. The issue with your example would be EVERYTHING that comes with a radical political belief.

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Was I missing the 'big picture' that you have now described? I'll be honest with you, I don't think you and I are even agreed on what conversation is actually taking place lol
 
It seems to me that Kevin is being asked to justify why and how his poly-fi relationship is constructed. Why is this? If the people actually INVOLVED in the relationship (in this case, Kevin), see no problem in the way their relationship is run, why would anyone else care? I'm in a mono relationship; it works for me. I would question why anyone would ask me why I choose to be in a mono relationship, if I'm not expressing any displeasure with it.

You do you, and I'll do me. I thought part of the attraction of this forum was this basic tenet?
 
I can only speak for myself.....

Learning the hows and whys and comparing them to mine, pinpointing how what I feel/think differs from his helps me examine my motivations and question my values. Plus I hope he can help give me extra viewpoints so I can better understand something I don't identify with.
(Which he totally has)

Further, I think regardless of your choices, it never hurts to examine them, question the use, and be exposed to new lines of reasoning. And to do that again from time to time after you've had experience. By getting to the heart of the purpose of your actions, you may be able to find better ways to fulfill that purpose. Much like many of us had to do with questioning monogamy and being exposed to alternative ways of thinking.


I've very much enjoyed being able to bounce these ideas off Kevin and learn about his viewpoint and explain how mine differs. I've gotten the impression he doesn't feel attacked or judged, and it was certainly not my intent to convert him.

You do you, I do me. Different people work differently and that's wonderful. But also... I want to understand and be understood as well as understanding myself better. That can only happen by asking and exposing. Hopefully our interaction leads to better self reflection and discovery.

Please try to see the difference between exploring how we are different and saying you shouldn't be different.
 
I respectfully disagree.

It wasn't a simple question about how his relationship worked, but you asked him to justify why his poly-fi had "rules." I couldn't fail to notice that he did NOT ask you why you DIDN'T have rules.

I'm in a mono relationship, and don't feel I have to go any further than to say I practice that because it works for us. Will it always? I don't know. But if someone then asks me if I have REALLY examined monogamy and does it REALLY work for me, I will get offended. If I start to question my relationship model, and I have, I will start to look for advice. I don't need to justify anything as long as I'm not hurting anyone else.

For example, I have a friend who is very Catholic. I question the existence of God, but know I don't have any "proof" to determine one way or another. I don't question her beliefs at all. I don't understand it; I don't agree with many of her viewpoints, but I don't ask her to justify her belief. It is something ingrained in her, and brings her peace. I'm sure that many on this board would think, in the spirit of honesty, I should tell her that I veer to the disbelieving side. I don't. Why? Because what good would it do, and how would it change anything? If she was trying to get me to join her in her church activities or things like that, I may have to put my foot down, but she doesn't. I feel we are very good friends, in spite of our differences. I let her be her, and she doesn't need to explain anything to me.
 
I don't understand it; I don't agree with many of her viewpoints, but I don't ask her to justify her belief. It is something ingrained in her, and brings her peace. I'm sure that many on this board would think, in the spirit of honesty, I should tell her that I veer to the disbelieving side. I don't. Why?

Because you aren't having a conversation with her on an online forum in a board called: Discussions on Theory & Application of Catholicism?

This is a discussion board, explicitly named: Discussions on Theory & Application of Polyamory. ArtemisHunt and kdt26417 are clearly down to discuss their differing views. I would like to encourage you to let them.

You sound like you don't want to be in their discussion... so... how might that inform your actions?
 
Back
Top