Inyourendo
New member
So if my husband wanted to open our marriage, I agree and get a boyfriend but husband decides poly isn't for him he can decide that hw wants to go back to monogamy and if I don't dump him or my boyfriend I'm being unethical?
Consent: What if it's Not Required?
- Thread starter kdt26417
- Start date
So if my husband wanted to open our marriage, I agree and get a boyfriend but husband decides poly isn't for him he can decide that hw wants to go back to monogamy and if I don't dump him or my boyfriend I'm being unethical?
polychronopolous
New member
With all due respect, the only difference between consent and permission as outlined above is that the recipient would "feel better" about having received consent over permission as they were defined.
In reality, "you are not allowed to have sex with anyone else" and "I am not okay with you having sex with someone else, and if you do so, our marriage will be over" are exactly the same statement. A violation of consent in this situation has the same consequence as an action for which permission was denied.
A partner waiting for consent is just as immobilized as a partner waiting for consent and a partner who has violated either permission or consent will have the same consequence.
polychronopolous
New member
Can someone give permission but not consent? Can someone consent but not give permission?
To me, giving consent is about my willingness to participate in a given thing. It starts and ends with me, my body, my boundaries. I cannot consent to a partner having a relationship outside of my own, because that relationship has nothing to do with me. I can, however, consent to maintaining my own relationship with my partner or not.
Giving permission assumes I have the authority and power to influence another person's participation in a given thing. If I have authority and power over another person's decision-making in a particular domain, then I assume that they will come and ask me for permission before doing something in that domain ahead of time, since the overall responsibility for their participation rests with me.
I think some people feel that a spousal relationship is entwined to the degree that it is a permission-based system. However, for me consent-type relationships are the only ones that I would ever want to have with other adults. The only permission-type relationships I can envisage being in are reserved for my kids when they are very young. A young child needs to ask a parent permission before going to the shops on his/her own. An adult makes his/her own mind up.
Giving permission assumes I have the authority and power to influence another person's participation in a given thing. If I have authority and power over another person's decision-making in a particular domain, then I assume that they will come and ask me for permission before doing something in that domain ahead of time, since the overall responsibility for their participation rests with me.
I think some people feel that a spousal relationship is entwined to the degree that it is a permission-based system. However, for me consent-type relationships are the only ones that I would ever want to have with other adults. The only permission-type relationships I can envisage being in are reserved for my kids when they are very young. A young child needs to ask a parent permission before going to the shops on his/her own. An adult makes his/her own mind up.
vinsanity0
Active member
Exactly. I fully agree with what you wrote in the previous post as well, about using different phrasing to make one "feel better."
Re (from AnnabelMore):
My first thought is that seniority determines the answer to that question. But then I think, what if I have two partners, I've had one for seven months, and the other for six months? Isn't it a little petty to give the seven-month partner say over the six-month partner?
And the other troubling question you raise: Isn't determining the existence of a poly relationship based on spousal consent, equivalent to giving said spouse veto power? or, turned around, should everyone have a veto policy because that's the only way to ensure consent?
Actually that can get a little absurd. Suppose I have three partners. To preserve mutual consent, they all have veto power. They could be vetoing each other right and left if they wanted to. Are their vetoes then honored on a first-come first-serve basis? Yikes!
Don't get me wrong: On a general basis, I advise against veto policies. But these questions of consent will make me squirm a little when I try to give that advice.
Re (from vinsanity0):
Good point, and there would be a lot of lying going on if they weren't aware (such as if they didn't know about the marriage at all)!
Note: I mostly keep referring to spouses and marriage for convenience. It's harder to explain an example if no one's married to anyone. But any example I've gave could easily be changed into an example without any marriage in it, and still be just as valid. At least that's the idea.
We say that polyamory only ought to exist with the consent of all involved partners. Could we then say that monogamy only ought to exist with the consent of both partners? If I tell my monogamous wife that I want to take on a polyamorous girlfriend, and my wife says, "No," and I say, "I refuse to consent to your negative response," and my wife says, "I still say, No!" doesn't that mean my wife is violating (or trying to violate) *my* right to withhold consent?
Re (from Inyourendo):
Is that a case where it would be up to the husband whether to divorce (and in the meantime the poly dynamic would or could continue)?
Re (from polychronopolous):
The "no consent" statement is in fact like the "no permission" statement only with an added clause, that of the consequences if the other person acts against the "no consent" statement. This is (to me) what distinguishes a rule from a boundary as well. A boundary is virtually the same as a rule, except the boundary has an added consequence clause (what will happen if the other person trespasses on the boundary). The stated consequence is something within the power of the person stating the boundary (such as the power to break up), but to me that part is obvious.
In other words, "rules" and "permission" are actually weaker than "boundaries" and "consent." At least that's true in adult-to-adult relationships.
My first thought is that seniority determines the answer to that question. But then I think, what if I have two partners, I've had one for seven months, and the other for six months? Isn't it a little petty to give the seven-month partner say over the six-month partner?
And the other troubling question you raise: Isn't determining the existence of a poly relationship based on spousal consent, equivalent to giving said spouse veto power? or, turned around, should everyone have a veto policy because that's the only way to ensure consent?
Actually that can get a little absurd. Suppose I have three partners. To preserve mutual consent, they all have veto power. They could be vetoing each other right and left if they wanted to. Are their vetoes then honored on a first-come first-serve basis? Yikes!
Don't get me wrong: On a general basis, I advise against veto policies. But these questions of consent will make me squirm a little when I try to give that advice.
Re (from vinsanity0):
Good point, and there would be a lot of lying going on if they weren't aware (such as if they didn't know about the marriage at all)!
Note: I mostly keep referring to spouses and marriage for convenience. It's harder to explain an example if no one's married to anyone. But any example I've gave could easily be changed into an example without any marriage in it, and still be just as valid. At least that's the idea.
We say that polyamory only ought to exist with the consent of all involved partners. Could we then say that monogamy only ought to exist with the consent of both partners? If I tell my monogamous wife that I want to take on a polyamorous girlfriend, and my wife says, "No," and I say, "I refuse to consent to your negative response," and my wife says, "I still say, No!" doesn't that mean my wife is violating (or trying to violate) *my* right to withhold consent?
Re (from Inyourendo):
Is that a case where it would be up to the husband whether to divorce (and in the meantime the poly dynamic would or could continue)?
Re (from polychronopolous):
The "no consent" statement is in fact like the "no permission" statement only with an added clause, that of the consequences if the other person acts against the "no consent" statement. This is (to me) what distinguishes a rule from a boundary as well. A boundary is virtually the same as a rule, except the boundary has an added consequence clause (what will happen if the other person trespasses on the boundary). The stated consequence is something within the power of the person stating the boundary (such as the power to break up), but to me that part is obvious.
In other words, "rules" and "permission" are actually weaker than "boundaries" and "consent." At least that's true in adult-to-adult relationships.
Yes. Though what would be right for hubby to do is to see that what he wants isn't what you want and make it an amicable split. It's unlikely that both people will be in the frame of mind to do what is right though, so it's often one person who has to call the shots.
Cheating is breaking explicit or implicit rules. The rules - and consent - are negotiable and can change, but only continue to work if there is mutual agreement. One person unilaterally changing the rules or breaking them is cheating. The other person(s) can decide to accept this or not, and their response can range from mute disapproval to terminating the relationship.
I dislike vetoes, but if you've negotiated a veto condition, then it needs to be honored until you either agree to change it, or break the rules and accept the consequences. If a couple is married, there can be significant legal issues that result, compared to the consequences with a partner to whom you're not married. If you both wish to maintain the marriage and give it priority, a veto may sometimes be justified.
I dislike vetoes, but if you've negotiated a veto condition, then it needs to be honored until you either agree to change it, or break the rules and accept the consequences. If a couple is married, there can be significant legal issues that result, compared to the consequences with a partner to whom you're not married. If you both wish to maintain the marriage and give it priority, a veto may sometimes be justified.
Personally I prefer not to swing the pendulum all the way over and say that *every* kind of rule infraction counts as cheating. I mean suppose a married couple has a (rule) agreement that the husband will take out the garbage every Thursday. One Thursday he goes to a party and neglects his garbage duty. So, he's cheating? I would think "dropping the ball" would be a sufficient term.
blackraven
New member
Is there a point at which the spouse loses the right to enforce a veto? I mean, you can always choose to no longer be in the relationship, but I feel like there ought to be a time limit or something on a poly veto.
If my wife decided she was no longer okay with us being open or poly, I would say I won't add anymore and we can discuss closure if my current relationship ends, but not 2 years in at this point, where nothing is unhealthy, and there is not exceptional drama. Or anything.
If my wife decided she was no longer okay with us being open or poly, I would say I won't add anymore and we can discuss closure if my current relationship ends, but not 2 years in at this point, where nothing is unhealthy, and there is not exceptional drama. Or anything.
opalescent
Active member
I also have to concur that this thread, while utterly fascinating, is indeed hierarchy-centric. This is not bad, as lots of people, including myself, have done or currently do hierarchy in poly relationships. I don't find hierarchy to be inherently unethical.
What is driving me a bit mad about the discussion is the untalked about, underlying assumption that the point of being in relationship with someone else is to make them happy, or at minimum, not cause them pain or hurt them.
Lots of people have this assumption. It's wired into Western society, part of how we learn about love and being in relationships. On the face of it, it's certainly not unreasonable. I don't want to hurt my partner(s), I don't want to be hurt and I want to be happy - and I want them to be happy too.
That said, no one can make me happy, no matter how hard they work at it. It's not because I'm hard to please or always miserable. Neither of those are true. It's just that being happy, like being secure, is an an inside job and not something anyone can provide for us. It's not my partner's job to make me happy. (There is also the huge existential issue of if being happy is really a good goal to have in life but I'm gonna leave that one alone for now.) And no matter what I do, I cannot make someone else happy if they do not have it in them already to be happy. I always say insecurity can be a black hole for partners - you can pitch in all the reassurances, kind words and love all you want but if the insecure partner doesn't do the work to manage their insecurity and possibly reducing or ending it, that's just a black hole that sucks everything in, gives nothing back and ultimately it can kill a relationship. Trying to make a partner happy can be a similar black hole. I'm not saying don't try to please a partner, meet their needs and wants and so on. But making that the goal of being in a relationship sets that relationship up to fail at an impossible goal.
Also, it's not a good thing for a relationship where partners work to not hurt each other. Yes, it is terrible to deliberately hurt a partner, to be cruel, or to cause pain to hurt them so they hurt like you do. That is never acceptable in any relationship. Ever.
What is worse than not causing each other pain is to stop telling each other the hard truths about yourselves. Being unwilling to cause a partner pain often leads to not telling that partner who you really are. The truth often hurts. It causes pain. It upsets relationships, causes chaos and turmoil. Our truths may not match up like they once did. Not telling a personal truth out of fear of hurting someone, especially someone we love deeply - while utterly understandable - leads us to hide from our loved ones.
I stopped telling Beaker my tough truths about our relationship because I did not want to hurt her. What I had to tell her would have deeply wounded her. That was incredibly arrogant of me. Beaker is one of the toughest, most resilient people I know. I stopped being authentic and honest with her and did not allow her the opportunity to be authentic and honest with me. This dynamic doomed our marriage. It wasn't our only problem but it certainly ensured that we did not work on resolving any of our issues because we could not even admit to each other that we had them. This is what I most regret in life. If I could go back in time, this is the one thing I would 'fix'.
For me, relationships are not about being happy, although that is a lovely benefit of being in them for me. My 'job' as a partner is not to avoid hurting my partner. The reason to be in a relationship, what they are 'for', is to help us become who we most fully are, that allow, support and help us grow into being our most authentic, open, honest, loving self. If being authentic means I have to hurt my partner by telling them a hard truth about myself (or possibly them), then I am going to hurt my partner. I will hate it, I will not want to, I will regret their pain but I will do it. I've suffered through the high costs of doing otherwise.
If the point of relationships is to be happy and not hurt our partners, then yes, consent and permission are not so different. You each 'own' each other's' pain points and thus permissions allow each other to proceed (or not) without, theoretically, causing each other pain. (And they often don't work to prevent pain or ensure happiness.)
If relationships are meant to help us be who all we are, to become more fully ourselves, as I believe they are, consent is critical to being authentic. I have to have the ability to consent - AnnabelMore's point about needing the ability to retract agreement to have real consent is spot on - in order to be fully myself.
However, needing anyone's 'permission' to be fully myself just seems so ridiculous to me. I don't own anyone, much less those beloved people who have chosen to be in relationship with me. They don't need my permission to be themselves, to act in ways they find most authentic and honest and real. Sometimes those ways of being real are going to hurt me. Sometimes I am going to have to endure discomfort and pain in order so that someone else has the chance to be their best self. I will have to accept that paths cross, and then diverge as being ourselves take us away from each other. This is so incredibly hard. I get why we avoid it with all of our might and will. It hurts so much. But the alternative is so much worse for me. I will never give permission for someone to be themselves. I will never ask for permission to be the same. I will negotiate and talk about how to match our paths together, now to cope with discomfort, how to reduce pain, when possible, and when to take that pain as necessary. I will work very hard indeed at all those things and more. But I will never ask for or give permission.
Inyourendo
New member
I think it's on the partner who wants to close the relationship back up to either deal with it or leave. I do not believe it would be unethical for me to not dump my boyfriend because my husband decides he doesn't want to share me.
Inyourendo
New member
I don't think that veto will exist if the partner doesn't give power to it. If my husband says "ok, we'll be open but if I say we are closing our relationship back for any reason then we will" well I can agree to it but if I don' actually agree to close when he tries to then the veto just doesn't exist. This actually happens all the time.
River
Well-known member
I agree with those who use the words "consent" and "permission" to mean importantly different things, even if they are largely synonymous.
I'm guessing the folks here who see these terms as distinct in meaning would probably agree that "permission" is the proper word when there is an inequality of power, or some kind or degree of hierarchy. Examples are: a parent-child relationship -- in which the child requires permission from a parent to, for example, spend the night at a friend's house or go on a school "field trip" ... and a typical teacher-student relationship in which the student is a child and the teacher is an adult. Thus, the word "permission" is oriented to authority.
Consent, on the other hand, need not involve such "permission," because consent can occur between those who share equally in decision-making power. They do not necessarily have a power imbalance or a difference in rank or authority. An example here would be spouses in America after the influence of feminism. Or spouses in most "modern" societies. Another example would be most friendships in modern societies.
I never ask my partner for "permission," though I often seek his consent. After all, he's not my parent, and he has no authority over me.
Rarely, actually, do I even ask for his consent, which is generally always implicit. For example, I twice recently called him to let him know I was spending the night at my friend/lover's home. The consent to do so was already present, and was implicit in our relationship agreement. In twenty years with him, I've spent only a very few nights away from him. So far.
I'm not going to quote Opalescent's entire well-written post because it's long, so I'm gonna try to respond to the parts that stood out most to me.
The not hurting partners bit: This was the downfall for S2 and me. He and I had said all along we would *try* not to *deliberately* hurt each other. My version of trying not to deliberately hurt him was acting in the way I felt was most right and most beneficial for him (though I shortchanged myself in the process, and I own that), and being one hundred percent honest with him but phrasing it as kindly and gently as I could. Whereas his version of trying not to deliberately hurt me was withholding things from me about how he felt about the relationship, letting me hold onto beliefs about the relationship that he knew I had but also knew were untrue, and on a couple of occasions toward the end, outright lying to me. All this despite the many times I told him "Hurt me with honesty, don't make me happy with a lie, because if you're dishonest I WILL find out, and that will hurt me far worse than any truth you could ever tell me." He didn't believe me... or he didn't have the guts to be honest even when I asked him to. Or both.
As you might see from the way I phrased it above... I made S2 a promise in reference to hurting him. I did NOT promise I would never hurt him. I didn't even promise I would never hurt him *deliberately*. The promise I made was phrased as I typed above: "I promise I will do everything I can to try not to deliberately hurt you." Because that was a promise I knew I could keep. I could *try* to avoid *deliberately* hurting him. That's the most I'll ever promise any partner. I can't say I"ll never hurt them. Shit happens. I can't even say I'll never hurt them deliberately. But I can say I'll do everything in my power to try to avoid having that happen.
I don't ask for my partners to make me happy, nor do I expect to make them happy, because no one *makes* anyone feel anything. I *contribute* (I hope) to my partners' happiness, and they *contribute* to mine. But how we feel is entirely dependent on ourselves, not each other.
The not hurting partners bit: This was the downfall for S2 and me. He and I had said all along we would *try* not to *deliberately* hurt each other. My version of trying not to deliberately hurt him was acting in the way I felt was most right and most beneficial for him (though I shortchanged myself in the process, and I own that), and being one hundred percent honest with him but phrasing it as kindly and gently as I could. Whereas his version of trying not to deliberately hurt me was withholding things from me about how he felt about the relationship, letting me hold onto beliefs about the relationship that he knew I had but also knew were untrue, and on a couple of occasions toward the end, outright lying to me. All this despite the many times I told him "Hurt me with honesty, don't make me happy with a lie, because if you're dishonest I WILL find out, and that will hurt me far worse than any truth you could ever tell me." He didn't believe me... or he didn't have the guts to be honest even when I asked him to. Or both.
As you might see from the way I phrased it above... I made S2 a promise in reference to hurting him. I did NOT promise I would never hurt him. I didn't even promise I would never hurt him *deliberately*. The promise I made was phrased as I typed above: "I promise I will do everything I can to try not to deliberately hurt you." Because that was a promise I knew I could keep. I could *try* to avoid *deliberately* hurting him. That's the most I'll ever promise any partner. I can't say I"ll never hurt them. Shit happens. I can't even say I'll never hurt them deliberately. But I can say I'll do everything in my power to try to avoid having that happen.
I don't ask for my partners to make me happy, nor do I expect to make them happy, because no one *makes* anyone feel anything. I *contribute* (I hope) to my partners' happiness, and they *contribute* to mine. But how we feel is entirely dependent on ourselves, not each other.
Just my .02 but as consenting adults we all have the choice (and responsibility) to set our own rules and boundaries. If couples don't speak to each other about their wants and needs then there can be no true relationship because it is inevitable one or more in the configuration will be hurt and/or feel betrayed so the relationship won't work. That's true in ANY relationship. the guides are meant to be just that ... guides.
Personally, I am possessive of my men so I prefer to stay faithful inside the relationship... Even if that includes several pre-specified or permanent lovers. But what I want or get out of my relationships may be different than what others need or want, so the rules have to change with those needs or desires. The first and foremost rule should ALWAYS be trust and communication. From there you can take it anywhere you want. It helps if those new to the lifestyle write out a personal contract that specifies and/or outlines those needs and desires and any compromises you have each agreed to. This helps to keep any misunderstandings to a minimum and gives you a logical place to revisit and discuss when something happens without it degenerating into a messy fight or argument.
Last edited:
You can also leave your marriage to someone who obviously isn't compatible with you but that would mean being completely unselfish. People can change their minds and withdraw consent and others around them have to respect that their consent is withdrawn. If we didn't have that basic understanding, then it would be okay for you to continue having sex with someone who has withdrawn consent simply because when you started, they agreed to it. If you want to have sex and the other person doesn't, you don't just rape them, you find someone who is willing. It's the same when your partner stops consenting to you having multiple partners. You find someone who is okay with it so you know that you are not subjecting them to a level of risk they are not consenting to take.
Norwegianpoly
New member
Me and husband decided long ago that vetos are for the initial dating period only. Once a person is in our lives, noone can veto him or her. If there is trouble in the relationship it has to be fixed by bettering the relation or breaking up, but it is not for others to decide.
That being said, I am sort of happy the relationship between husband and his sort of gf did not work out. She was very insecure and unstable, although a very sweet person, so while we are still in contact, the romantic relationship part is over. I am beginning to see that it might take a special person. Right now I am very happy with just the three of us.
That being said, I am sort of happy the relationship between husband and his sort of gf did not work out. She was very insecure and unstable, although a very sweet person, so while we are still in contact, the romantic relationship part is over. I am beginning to see that it might take a special person. Right now I am very happy with just the three of us.
Inyourendo
New member
I am not violating someone's body by not dumping my other partner for them, that comparison ia total bullshit.