Do new relationship affect old ones? or do old one affect new ones?-Couple Privilege

[LovingRadiance]

I like the color theme. That's very cool.

Maca and GG picked their own names on here, so I was kind of stuck with those lol.
The kids are all some sort of pea. LOL.
Spicy Pea (cause she's part Puerta Rican) (never can spell that)
Salty Pea (it fits his personality)
Split Pea (he's my Godson and has been split between families)
Sweet Pea (This is how it started, that was always his nickname)
Sour Pea (cause she had major digestion issue as a baby and we nicknamed her that)

Now the grandson is Little P. Because when he was born I was so excited and wanted to announce it and that is what popped in my head.
But Maca started calling him Peanut and it stuck, so when his baby brother was born we started calling him Cashew.

So NOW the grand babies are nuts.

 

[kdt26417]

Re (from Murasaki):

"Re: 'It has occurred to me to check and see if my prior posts would be tweaked at all by my particular situation, as you intimated, Murasaki.'
For the record I made that suggestion because reading your remarks gave me the impression that they were geared towards a married couple seeking a single. Which on the surface does seem to fit in your situation. I also felt that your wording was more looking at things as the Married couple being of the unicorn hunting variety, and I didn't believe you were anyone's Unicorn.
Perhaps my word choices were taken more aggressively then I intended. If offense was taken, none was intended."

No offense taken. I think I started out with the idea that since I am the unmarried person in my V, I am like the "would-be unicorn" to my two married companions. Of course, that would only fit the stereotype if we were a triad, I were a bi female, and my companions were a bi and hetero female and male respectively. So I'm not really a "unicorn," but I made comparisons to fit for the sake of argument.

At the time it hadn't occurred to me to compare our V to a "couple with privelage." The only difference is that there are three of us instead of two -- and yes, we are poised to exercise a certain amount of privelage (over a newcomer). One lesson to learn is that perhaps we, too, a trio, should be prepared to have some flexibility, should a fourth person ever come into our life.

Re (from LovingRadiance):

"Too many people make the assumption that their ideas are everyone's ideas. Dangerous path!"

Indeed. As are almost all assumptions. I'll take "too much communication" any day over the risk of too little. Heh. Remember when NASA bungled a Mars mission because some of the planners were "assuming" English measurements while others were "assuming" metric measurements? A little extra communication could have saved everyone a whole lot of time, effort, and money.

 

[LovingRadiance]

Kdt-
lol

yes. assumptions.. so much fun.
I prefer too much communication over too little as well.
Its SO EASY to say "ok, break, my ears are over limit".
But how does one know when to say (before a crisis) "um... hey is there something you haven't told me but should?"

Blech.

Maca and I made way too many assumptions when we got together. Figuring all of them out (and then, the dramatic problems that they caused) so we could fix shit-was a FIASCO.

We had different working definitions for love, affection, hope, work, family, home, care, attention, quality time.....
I mean really-it's a wonder we survived the first 10 years at all!

Once we figured out that we were coming from (TOTALLY) different worlds; we were able to plan a joint venture. Talk about EYE OPENING!

Poor GG was stuck watching the whole thing play out, not really sure where it went awry, but knowing something was off.


Learn from mistakes. Learn from mistakes.
Now, I say everything and ask for everything to be said. Sometimes it's probably too much. But at least this way we aren't walking around like morons with our heads stuck in the ground, thinking we're going one place together and actually digging trenches to different places all on our own!

 

[kdt26417]

Haha, well said. A little innocent assumption can cause so much grief. God, gods, or Mother Nature, take your pick, gave us a brain, mouth, and ears. How blessed we are when we use those blessings! Assumptions can be revealed at the get-go with minimal headache, or they can be revealed later by experience and full-blown migraines. I recommend getting them out of the way ahead of time.

It's always a surprise to find out how different another person's assumptions were, when you were both so sure it seemed so obvious. Ah, but things are never obvious until they are given plainly understood expression. Shoot, even I, who am prone to talking too much, have been known to leave out a detail that proved to be a major factor later on. So, never assume ... Always get confirmation.

 

[london]

This seems like you are angry about a situation you have been in and I have become the target of that anger. I am sorry you found yourself in such a situation, I and my family did not create the situation which caused you such distress, and is the source of your current anger.

No, I can spot when a couple has those types of restrictive rules that signify control issues and couple privilege a mile off and I avoid them like the plague. I've thankfully never been in that situation.

 

[london]

and their SO’s have very different expectations on each other, and those expectation (to me) are easier to work with than the expectations on live-in partners.

If you mean that solo poly people are more likely to practice a relaxed, trust based form of ethical non monogamy opposed to couples who are more likely to feel the need to protect themselves from betrayal with rules and protocols, you're absolutely right. Yes, I am solo right now because, as I said, I don't share practical entanglements with anyone. I don't plan to always be solo, but this won't mean that I suddenly insert rules and regulations about having new partners that weren't there before. The foundation of trust, respect and freedom that we start with is what I want to carry through the relationship. Yes, our obligations will increase as we get more entangled, but I don't need to set rules/guidelines/protocols/boundaries that will ensure my partner will maintain his responsibilities. That is not the type of relationship I want.

 

[WhatHappened]

No, I can spot when a couple has those types of restrictive rules that signify control issues...

What type of rules would you regard as restrictive?

On what basis do these rules mean that a person or a couple has issues, rather than this is what works for them?

 

[london]

What type of rules would you regard as restrictive?

I view rules that control how someone can interact and bond with a new partner as restrictive. For example, if there are rules around when and how a date can place, what can happen on that date and having to ask permission to interact in the ways that we want to. There is a difference between someone's wife saying "Will you check in with me on your date because I get the wobbles and it helps to maintain our relationships" and saying "Will you refrain from interacting with this person in this way and interact with them that way instead because it makes me feel more secure". Any rules that are designed to make sure that the people in the relationship maintain their responsibilities - this to me signifies distrust, more than anything. If a guy that I was planning to date has rules set by his wife to ensure that he spends enough time with his kids, it puts me off of him. Why doesn't he naturally want to spend time with his kids? Why doesn't she trust that he will put his kids before his love life? What kind of guy is he? I also know that "the kids" is useful manipulation tool when you are attempting to control your partner's outside relationships: if you can make your partner feel like any spare time spent away from the kids and with a partner is a betrayal to them, you can ensure that your partner will spend very little time away from the home (ie you) and any partner they see will also be under your supervision if they opt to see them at all under those circumstances.

Another thing is when a person has expectations for metamours to slot into a little gap, unicorn style, with no thought or consideration to what they might need or what works for them. The assumption that they will share their philosophies and want to build a romantic relationship the way that the spouse (not the potential partner) thinks is appropriate. It is meant to be the people who will have the relationship that decide how it is best for those two individuals to bond. On a side note, what I see happen in these cases is that when one of the people in the primary style relationship meets someone they really like, they too begin to actually want to accommodate their needs, simply because they want to build a relationship of some sort with them and they realise that unless they consider their needs, that won't happen. This puts the spouse up in arms because they feel like their primary union isn't being respected and most importantly, protected, by those initial rules and regulations they set. Sometimes those protection rules were set because the person forming the new relationship has a penchant for shirking their obligations when they develop new ones, other times that isn't the case at all. It's just a way for one or both parties to control their partner's other relationships and I am not into having my relationships controlled by someone else. I like my relationships to be organic, as hippified as that sounds, and they cannot develop organically when they are being influenced by someone else.

On what basis do these rules mean that a person or a couple has issues, rather than this is what works for them?

What you are dismissing is the fact that it may "work for them" because "a person or a couple has issues". If you acknowledge that your partner is very insecure and has trust issues, and so that means that they put restrictions on your outside relationships but you are fine with those restrictions because it doesn't stop you getting what you need from those outside relationships, that's fine. Obviously, as long as you are forthcoming about those restrictions and the consequential privilege that will always give your primary relationship to any potential partner(s). It doesn't invalidate the fact that there are insecurity, control and trust issues in your relationship, it just means that you are cool with them being there. I'm just saying that I don't form relationships with people who are in that situation because it is incompatible with the types of relationships that I want to have.

 

[Murasaki]

trying to catch up

Re (from Murasaki):
No offense taken. I think I started out with the idea that since I am the unmarried person in my V, I am like the "would-be unicorn" to my two married companions. Of course, that would only fit the stereotype if we were a triad, I were a bi female, and my companions were a bi and hetero female and male respectively. So I'm not really a "unicorn," but I made comparisons to fit for the sake of argument.

At the time it hadn't occurred to me to compare our V to a "couple with privelage." The only difference is that there are three of us instead of two -- and yes, we are poised to exercise a certain amount of privelage (over a newcomer). One lesson to learn is that perhaps we, too, a trio, should be prepared to have some flexibility, should a fourth person ever come into our life.

Until your comment about sharing emails I had not thought of a triad or V exhibiting privilege over a new relationship. I guess we are both thankful to your remarks on emailing It makes just as much sense as a couple who act in a privileged fashion. Food for thought.

On Sharing email info:
Kuroi and I have shared all login and password info on everything. This stems from the beginnings of the internet, when email was new. Due to forgetting logins, ect we created a shared address book that we store everything in. It's not common for either of us to "check" the others accounts, but it does occur on occasion with the other person permission or request depending on the situation. I let my potential SO’s know for just in case. Not sure if Kuroi does the same, I have never asked. I have however stated that I expect it to be known.

I view rules that control how someone can interact and bond with a new partner as restrictive. For example, if there are rules around when and how a date can place,

Who says its a “rule” that restricts WHEN a date can take place? Maybe it’s more about time management then any rule. In my relationship it’s time management. I may WANT weekends with Kuroi because that is the time I have available. Does that mean Kuroi is obligated to give me that? Or is it just that Kuroi NEEDS to take my requests into consideration when making plans with someone else?

If Kuroi decides to grant my request and then invites someone out on a weekday date, is that really me creating a controlling or restrictive “rule”? Or is Kuroi taking that request into consideration? Is this a case of an assumption being made that my request is a demand with no flexibility? Or is Kuroi attempting to grant my request first, if the other person will accept a weekday date. If this other person isn't available and the only time they can meet is on the weekend does my request then get set aside? YES. at least this time it does, maybe next time I'll get my request granted.

This has actually only happened on the JOB front, but it illustrates my point I think. I asked Kuroi to see about getting a Friday or a Saturday off once or twice a month so we could have a day off together. So far I have gotten ONE Friday in a months time. But I'm hopeful for more each month that comes along.

 

[Murasaki]

My spouse and I never had “rules” and now that I’m wanting some rules none of what I am talking about/suggesting controls what Kuroi and a new person can do between themselves.
The only restrictive things Kuroi (and myself for that matter) have to work around is the inability to have a sleepover at our place. We do not have the space for it. And having only one reliable mode of transportation at the moment. (not counting our own two feet, and trains/public transportation)


The rules I’m talking with Kuroi about are more an explanation of what I consider respect between Kuroi and I, between myself and any meta with whom I have contact. I have asked Kuroi to put a similar thing together for us to talk about.
When a new SO comes into the picture I would ask them the same thing, and I expect Kuroi to do the same with his SO’s.

I have started this because of the issues NRE between my ex and Kuroi caused. Because Kuroi dropped the ball while experiencing NRE something that had not happened for a long time for Kuroi. Kuroi was not prepared. I was not prepared. My idea of respectful speech, and conduct are something I am not willing to budge on ever again. And I intend to be very very sure that Kuroi knows and understands how I want to be treated by my partners, and their SO’s. (I will have a similar conversation with my SO’s when I start dating and the time is right)

I do not expect people to be perfect. We are all human, flaws are part of being human. I’m willing to work with someone who has issues with jealousy, or insecurity (up to a point). I’m not going to up and walk away from a relationship that has potential because someone needs to work on themself some. Now if whomever has the issue refuses to acknowledge the issue, or to work on it that’s a different story.

As a matter of fact I was talking to Kuroi about providing the poly resource we have collected and offering them to new people (not everyone with have any idea, or info on Poly prior to meeting a poly person). For several reasons. Information is power. Education is a great way to reduce stress, and minimize some issues from cropping up. Offering information allows someone new to poly the ability to make a more informed decision. And there is the benefit of them being more likely to recognize their issues, and speak up when (for example) they feel jealous so we can help (whom evers help they want/need). There is the added benefit of this information allowing someone new to point out when Kuroi and I are doing the negative things, then this new person can help me, or Kuroi or both of us avoid making certain mistakes. This requires the ability for everyone to communicate at least cordially with each other.

In My case, I have a health issue that could require my SO’s communicate at inconvenient times to me and that SO, and to my other SO and their partner. This will likely require more than just cordial communication. Especially for any new person dealing with my previously unwitnessed health issue. So My SO seeing me get sick, will likely need to call Kuroi for how to help me recover. And Kuroi’s SO will NEED to know that this is a possibility (rare, but it does occur, and is not something within my control) so that hurt feelings can be reduced (hopefully prevented). Not sure I’m willing to share my health issue. It only comes up once every few years. But it happened while out with one of Kuroi’s co-workers this past weekend, so I’m feeling very uncomfortable, embarrassed, and such about it.

 

[Murasaki]

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations out there. Having unrealistic expectations can be reduced by communication. If the people with expectations on each other don’t talk about the changes that can or will happen when they start dating then problems ensue.

However couples, or established relationships are not the only ones who exhibit unrealistic expectations. Is it realistic as a single person dating a married with kids to get married to thier SO in that couple? In some ways it is unrealistic, in others it is not. Kuroi and I are willing to set up our life in such a way that that could happen, however that isn’t something that comes easily, or quickly. A divorce is no joke, and Kuroi and I are in agreement that we do not want a divorce while we are co-parenting. This could always change at some point, something could happen that make divorce the best option for us, however a new person should not be pushing us to divorce so they can get married to one of us. There are other options, they don’t come with the same financial, benefits, or public recognition. I understand and recognize that, however there are ceremonies that can be just as binding to the two people within those ceremonies if they so chose.

Any rules that are designed to make sure that the people in the relationship maintain their responsibilities - this to me signifies distrust, more than anything. If a guy that I was planning to date has rules set by his wife to ensure that he spends enough time with his kids, it puts me off of him. Why doesn't he naturally want to spend time with his kids? Why doesn't she trust that he will put his kids before his love life? What kind of guy is he?

Here's a senerio for you:

A couple open their relationship to love other people (POLY). One of them finds a match and starts dating. Then experiences NRE, and becomes NRE blind towards their pre-existing partnership. They drop the ball in some way that damages the pre-existing relationship. NRE fades, and things level out some, but one person in this V is hurt, and distrustful. The hinge wants to correct the wrongs that have been done, and the pre-existing partner wants to work it out. So the “burned” partner “creates” some rules to attempt to protect them self from what ever happen. Instead of finding out “why” their rule exists you’ll walk away?

I would ask some pointed, and leading questions. Find out why what ever rule I don't like, or don't agree with is in place. Find out if this rule is expected to be permanent, or temporary. If temporary I would then want to know when it could be looked at to see about relaxing it, or dropping it all together. Do they have a set time period to "try" the rule out? A set date/amount of time before bringing this rule up for re-negotiation?

Depending on these answers I would then have to decide if I was ok with the rule and for how long I am willing to give the people involved to work out their issue and relax/drop the rule. I don't expect perfection. I do expect cooperation, understanding, reasonable flexibility, and the ability to negotiate.

 

[WhatHappened]

What you are dismissing is the fact that it may "work for them" because "a person or a couple has issues". If you acknowledge that your partner is very insecure and has trust issues....

You always have such a delightfully diplomatic way of putting things.

What you are missing, is that, the fact you disagree with a way of doing things or a couple's rules, does not mean either of them has 'issues' or insecurity or trust issues.

I, too, would not be involved for long with someone in the situations you describe. But I see why parents, especially, might do so, and feel no need to cast character aspersions on them.

 

[kdt26417]

As things seem to me to be heating up a bit and misunderstandings may be in the air, let me try to make a few salient observations.

• Historically, couple privelage is the most common problem to crop up in a "unicorn" situation.
• However, there can be such a thing as "unicorn" privelage, with the "unmarried newcomer" using NRE to leverage one or both married partners.
• In any triad situation, it's up to all three people to make sure they are giving each other fair say in deciding the "rules," "agreements," or whatever they ought to be called.

To summarize: I'm not in favor of any kind of "privilege." A poly unit is supposed to be a cooperating group, not a competing group. As soon as one person becomes a "threat" to another person, competing rules and injured feelings are on the way.

This isn't to say that there aren't reasonable expectations to be had about what will happen to any kids in the family, etc.

 

[LovingRadiance]

KDT-yes yes and yes.

But-I would add.

There is also nothing wrong with people setting agreements for their current configuration.
Just because there are only three of us now-and we are open to others, doesn't mean we can't create agreements that work for the three of us NOW.

Of course-if another person joins, things WILL change. If one of us leaves things will change too.

BUT-the fact that potential person doesn't exist, doesn't mean we shouldn't be free to create agreements for what works for us now.

Another thought is-that because one person in a group says "this is our agreement";
that doesn't mean a different partner is holding a "rule" over them.

We have an agreement regarding our individual commitments to the kids. But it's not a rule one or another of us has placed upon another. It is an agreement we made as coparents.
Our coparent agreements do not require the participation of any other sexual partner. They aren't co-parents.

It's much like a business agreement.
We agreed to a set of responsibilities each of us has before agreeing to raise children together.
This is a business agreement between us that we are each responsible for upholding.
It impacts potential lovers-but it isn't negotiable by them.
That isn't "couple privilege" any more than having a work schedule is "work privilege".

 

[kdt26417]

Ahem ... perhaps we could call it "parent privilege?"

In any case, I am in agreement with what you said. The only exception would be a scenario something like, a married couple pairs up with a HBB and then says, "Now you babysit our kids for us. That's part of the new rules you have to follow." Like you said, the kids are the making and dependants of the original couple and as such, are that couple's responsibility (i.e., the responsibility is non-transferrable).

But the same said couple would have every right to tell the HBB, "Our kids need a certain amount of time and attention from us and we intend to provide them that, even though we hope we'll also meet your basic needs."

Re:

"Of course -- if another person joins, things *will* change. If one of us leaves things will change too. *But* -- the fact that potential person doesn't exist, doesn't mean we shouldn't be free to create agreements for what works for us now."

Okay, I think what you're saying is, as long as another person could join your poly group, but you haven't met that person yet, they remain a hypothetical person (who may or may not exist) and that's all you have to work with at this moment. You can't negotiate with a hypothetical person, so until you meet this person, you have to come to your agreements with the people you already have in your group.

And you might also be saying that no harm is done in being prepared ahead of time for the addition of such a hypothetical person? Like, you can speculate that, "These are the agreements that seem to us would be fair to anyone new who might join our group," and then if someone new does join your group, you can certainly tell them, "These are some things we agreed to before we met you. How do you feel about those agreements, and would you like us to make any revisions?"

Which is a little different than some "entitled couple" telling their newcomer HBB, "Hey, these are the rules we figured out would be best for everyone. We're sure you'll agree, and expect you to abide by the rules." So there's a difference between being prepared ahead of time, and between being inflexible about your expectations.

Perhaps I am inadvertently adding to what you were trying to say with all my speculations, but hopefully I'm not too far off track.

 

[LovingRadiance]

You are pretty right on track. I woukdnt limit parenting to a couple-because, for example, in our case parenting was negotiated as a group of three before poly. Our parenting agreement is three adults. Not two. But the point is the same. All responsibility falls on the group who entered the agreement and that isnt transferrable.
So if some bew party entered the dynamic they cant be held accountable either to join the parenting agreement or take on any of the duties of that agreement.

As for the hypothetical-its twofold.
Because it isnt couple privilege (or triad privilege) to have agrremembta in place. It only becomes that if it is held over a new person when they exist.

Much like; my oldest child was an only child for 6 years. It isnt "parent-child privilege" that she got x amt of one on one attention.
There were no other children.
At the point there were other children then and only then was there a need to consider their needs also.
Even while hypothetically discussing having more children, it was not necessary to plan for hiw much time each child would get, only to acknowledge that it would change. Because the "how" of the changes woukd be impossible to calculate in advance.

Likewise: a new partners needs and desires cant be calculated in advance. But-what I have to offer can. I do not have 100% or even 50% to offer. Save them time by setting that out there up front. I cant offer unlimited time and I cant offer dependably uninterruoted time.
Saying so isnt couole privikege. Its prior responsibility uPheld. Not saying it upfront doesnt change the reality-it only increases the chances of someone who wants and expects that, getting hurt.

There seems a big push that stating limitations upfront is somehow allowing or promoting couole privilege and i think this is erroneous. Not stating thise limits may remove the appearance of having prior responsibilities. But they still exist. So realky, waiting to "negotiate" non negotiables is just lying and leadin people on. Wastes their time and mine.

On the otherhand-the assumption that my assertations of limited availability are couple (or V) privilege is also a lie. It actually has little to do with privilege and everything to do with responsibikity.

 

[kdt26417]

Oh right, if three people enter into an agreement to co-parent a child (or children), then they have that shared responsibility and the same principles apply as if it were just a dyad with a child.

I see your point that everyone will have their "non-negotiables" that they enter into a new relationship with. If you've already committed certain time and attention to your partners, you can't suddenly change that at least not without their permission (and compatibility with your own conscience). I guess that's a weak example, though, since if you start with three adults and then add a fourth adult, you obviously want to be fair and "redistribute the schedule" to accomodate the new person.

But I get it; if you have responsibilities, you have responsibilities; can't just throw them aside because a newcomer wants more. Maybe it's kids you're responsible for, maybe it's your job, most likely it's a combination of things. You're not trying to short your new partner, you're just saving the time and resources you have to save for other things (as determined by your own good conscience).

And obviously, if you can't negotiate on a certain point, it's only fair and sensible to inform your new partner of that fact. As long as you let them know early in the game, then no harm is done because they can still walk away without a whole lot of heartache. The disservice would be to pretend there's no non-negotiables until your new partner is so emotionally invested that they can't walk away without seriously hurting themselves (and you as well).

I suppose what "we" (we collectively) could argue about is what constitutes a reasonable cause for non-negotiability. But none of this is really a poly-related issue. Traditional couples come together with non-negotiable conditions as well. As a single individual, long before I hook up with anyone, I have a responsibility to myself to decide what I can and can't do without violating my principles. These decisions that I make will have already been made before I even meet the person I'm going to marry. A good marriage (or actually, any marriage that can work at all) is one in which the two partners have already informed each other of their hard limits, and found that they're still compatible without having to change those limits. So in a monogamous marriage, I guess you could call that "individual privilege" if you wanted, although it's better described as "personal conscience."

Perhaps the universal truth for this whole thread is that you need to discuss conditions and agreements as early in the relationship as possible. That way, whether it can be negotiated or can't, both (or however many) people can make an informed decision about whether to stay or leave before anyone gets hurt. So, if you want to be the classic "unicorn hunter" couple, go ahead and do so, just make sure your new potential HBB partner knows what she's getting into before she gets into it. Likewise, this "HBB" is responsible to tell you ahead of time what her conditions and limits are.

Other questions to address might be, What if one doesn't know what one wants ahead of time, or, What if one thinks one knows but then changes his/her mind in the middle of the relationship? Shoot, I was in the midst of a monogamous marriage when I decided I wanted to add a polyamorous relationship to the mix. What could I do? I approached my wife as humbly as I could, and asked if she would consider it. Which amazingly, she did.

 

[JaneQSmythe]

To summarize: I'm not in favor of any kind of "privilege." A poly unit is supposed to be a cooperating group, not a competing group. As soon as one person becomes a "threat" to another person, competing rules and injured feelings are on the way.

This isn't to say that there aren't reasonable expectations to be had about what will happen to any kids in the family, etc.

While I agree whole-heartedly, I'm kind of interested as to how far this extends...

For instance, Dude is dating this new girl, Lotus. We are all interested in seeing how this proceeds (including her husband). At the same time we are all interested in her in our own right as well...as friends or FWBs or more (she is seriously that awesomely wonderful and interesting). She says that she feels she is tentatively dating me and MrS "via Dude"

We have no "rules" about metamours dating (we don't really have many "rules" about anything)...but we are all aware that the Dude<-->Lotus connection is the main attraction at the circus at this point, and are able/willing to foster this (giving them time alone, not getting upset about time away, etc.) If other relationships manifest in the wash of that, great, if they don't...we have a new friend. No harm, no foul.

That being said. Dude DOES have responsibilities to me and MrS - as lover and friend (and roommmate). If those responsibilities are neglected (for whatever reason...not necessarily Lotus), then that would affect OUR relationships.

Just thinking out loud...

JaneQ

 

[london]

Who says its a “rule” that restricts WHEN a date can take place? Maybe it’s more about time management then any rule. In my relationship it’s time management. I may WANT weekends with Kuroi because that is the time I have available. Does that mean Kuroi is obligated to give me that? Or is it just that Kuroi NEEDS to take my requests into consideration when making plans with someone else?

That's up to Kuroi to handle. See, if I knew that the only quality time I can really get with an existing partner is on weekends, I wouldn't build a relationship with someone who I could also only see on weekends because I have my existing relationship(s) to maintain. That's me taking care of my obligations, responsibilities etc.

A couple open their relationship to love other people (POLY). One of them finds a match and starts dating. Then experiences NRE, and becomes NRE blind towards their pre-existing partnership. They drop the ball in some way that damages the pre-existing relationship. NRE fades, and things level out some, but one person in this V is hurt, and distrustful. The hinge wants to correct the wrongs that have been done, and the pre-existing partner wants to work it out. So the “burned” partner “creates” some rules to attempt to protect them self from what ever happen. Instead of finding out “why” their rule exists you’ll walk away?

Straight away. I really don't have time for people with relationship issues to be messing with my mojo. You're either ready for this or you're not. Control and trust issues mean you aren't. In my most humble opinion, of course.

Then experiences NRE, and becomes NRE blind towards their pre-existing partnership.

That to me isn't about NRE, it's about not being able to ethically maintain your relationships. Someone without the ability to do this is of no interest to me. If I knew a potential partner habitually did this when they start a new relationship, I simply wouldn't be interested in them. Them mistreating their partner doesn't really affect me, however, they may expect me to do the same with my existing partners and/or do the same to me when they meet someone new down the line.

I would ask some pointed, and leading questions. Find out why what ever rule I don't like, or don't agree with is in place. Find out if this rule is expected to be permanent, or temporary. If temporary I would then want to know when it could be looked at to see about relaxing it, or dropping it all together. Do they have a set time period to "try" the rule out? A set date/amount of time before bringing this rule up for re-negotiation?

See, that's couple privilege. That's saying that my relationship with this guy moves at the pace his marriage is ready for. That might be cool with some people, but not me. That's why I wouldn't ever get with someone who isn't on the same page as their spouse. I'm just not interested in allowing other people's relationships to dictate my own. I'm not interested in their issues becoming my issues and feeling "wobbly" because they might (want to) pull the plug at any time. Not interested.

What you are missing, is that, the fact you disagree with a way of doing things or a couple's rules, does not mean either of them has 'issues' or insecurity or trust issues.

These are examples of when I would say there are issues:

"All dates must take place in the home unless permission has been granted for a different location because I don't want to be left holding the baby all the time." Mistrust:This says to me that spouse 1 cannot trust spouse 2 to fulfill parenting obligations

"I need input into how, when and who you date so I can make sure you don't get caught up in NRE" Mistrust: This says to me that spouse 1 cannot trust spouse 2 to maintain their relationship in the absence of monogamy

This is when I would say it's just personal taste, sort of thing:

"We always tell one another as soon as we start speaking to someone we like, so we the first date doesn't come out of the blue"

Which is a little different than some "entitled couple" telling their newcomer HBB, "Hey, these are the rules we figured out would be best for everyone. We're sure you'll agree, and expect you to abide by the rules." So there's a difference between being prepared ahead of time, and between being inflexible about your expectations.

This is what I see.

Not this:

But the same said couple would have every right to tell the HBB, "Our kids need a certain amount of time and attention from us and we intend to provide them that, even though we hope we'll also meet your basic needs."

It's more like "the majority of your allocated quality time will take place with our families". That will meet your needs or else. That to me comes back to:

"All dates must take place in the home unless permission has been granted for a different location because I don't want to be left holding the baby all the time."

Which makes me ask why this person isn't trusted to keep up with their parenting duties or whether it's because the potential metamour likes to feel in control of their spouses other relationships. Both are no no's for me. As I said before, I just totally reject the idea of all parents having to be with their kids every second of their spare time for it to count and I think this idea is often used as a manipulation tool. Not just in poly situations, but as a way of one co-parent controlling the other co-parent and restricting their time away from the family unit by way of emotional blackmail. again, usually because of trust issues and/or insecurity. These are not situations I want to be involved in on any level.

 

[Marcus]

That being said. Dude DOES have responsibilities to me and MrS - as lover and friend (and roommmate). If those responsibilities are neglected (for whatever reason...not necessarily Lotus), then that would affect OUR relationships.

This made me give some thought to what I consider to be a "responsibility". Paying my share of the bills or following through with an explicit agreement (take you to work on Tuesdays, pick up little Timmy from school on Fridays, etc). I can't think of what else would even come close to a responsibility when it comes to friends and lovers.

What would you consider a responsibility when it comes to the actions of Dude?