"ethical polyamory"

[MightyMax]

Firstly, I don't think we should try and cultivate a space where we see poly folk as "victims" and those in here who share their views as non-poly people as "victimizers". We should see the poly orientation / position as strong, rather than weak and victimized.

Second -- OMG! Really? As a bisexual and biamorous (and polyamorous) man who is one of the LGBT folks I find it odd to hear a perspective where LGBTQ folks are seen as perhaps more prone to being unfairly treated than poly folk are. Where I live, one can be out as apparently "gay," which is how most folks probably imagine me (since I have a male partner) ... without much discrimination or foul treatment. But I've experienced a LOT of maltreatment (and lack of acceptance) as an out poly guy. Polyamory, in my experience, is the less socially accepted way of being. In fact, my polyamory may have been a major factor in my recent ... well, never mind.




This gets into interesting nuances. Discrimination against LGBT people has historically been pretty intense AND highly "institutionalized" -- having resonances with institutionalized racism, for example. Or sexism, for example.

The institutionalization of monogamism (as it could be called) ... or polyphobia (as some may like to call it) is far less widely recognized or understood in our society today. And, for this and other reasons, we poly folk should remain open to hearing from people who "just don't get it" about polyamory. After all, it is we who are (and must) representing this as a valid alternative to monogamy -- which our culture (wrongly) imagines as essential to healthy "romantic" love relationships.

It used to be that heterosexuality was seen as essential to healthy "romantic" love relationships, and the non-hets had to make their case to those who thought otherwise. They succeeded in doing so -- because no case was necessary to begin with, nor any defense of this way of loving. And I think society will eventually realize that the same is true of the ethical non-monogamists. So it's not like I think any of these ways of loving needs defending. What is needed is for us not to be so defensive, and to be open and honest about our love.

I've personally experienced and witnessed discrimination for both. I'd say poly people have it "better" based on the fact that I've never seen or heard of someone being physically attacked for being poly (in the West, at least), whereas I've known of people who were killed for being gay. Funnily enough, my male gay friends don't tend to get much harassment and discrimination any more. Not the same for my female friends in same-sex relationships. Maybe that's more about sexism than anything else. Men are still offended by women who are sexually unavailable to them.

I don't think IP is a person who "doesn't get" polyamory. She has been exposed to it and has decided that polyamory (other than solo poly) is an unethical relationship structure as it always involves objectification, coercion and/or couple privilege.

I'm all for educating people about polyamory being a valid relationship structure, but I'm also mindful of protecting a "safe space" for people who are in a minority. That's not to say poly people are victims, and non-poly people aggressors, but broadly tarring all non-solo poly relationships as "unethical" does impede on the "safeness" of this space for a poly person. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[River]

I don't think IP is a person who "doesn't get" polyamory. She has been exposed to it and has decided that polyamory (other than solo poly) is an unethical relationship structure as it always involves objectification, coercion and/or couple privilege.

Okay, sort of. IP is suspicious of polyamory as perhaps more likely to harbor unethical behavior than monogamy (but it gets more complicted, since monogamy, strictly and narrowly speaking, is about marriage... sigh). But, honestly, I think she's right on the cusp of realizing that relationship FORM (monogamy vs non-monogamy) isn't all that important. What is important to her is whether people are treated as the unique and individual persons they are, rather than as sources of some "resource" others want from them. This is where IP and I are in total agreement. It's not nice to treat people as things from which we want to extract something we imagine we want. And, sadly, that's the "normal" way of "doing relationships".

I'm very happy and glad to have IP here as a way of reminding us to look deeply and ask ourselves if we're taking "the other" into account in a way which is deeply sensitive and respectful of that "other". I'm glad to have her to call us to our best potential as empathetic, compassionate and kind people.

AND I agree that some of her wording, early on, suggested accusation and judgement -- that somehow poly people are MORE prone to treat others as resources or things than mono people are. However, I will remind you that her tendency has been to be suspicious of ALL forms of relationship as a likely place in which people will (sometimes) be ill-considered as persons in their own right. And I can't help but agree with her in this. Where she and I part ways is in thinking that poly folk should in any way be singled out as more likely to mal-treat others than mono or single ("autonomous"?) folk.

I hope everyone here will realize I'm not wishing to stuff words in anyone's mouth. We can all speak for ourselves, and I may have -- in haste -- been less careful in interpretation of the intended meaning or words of others present.

In praise of love...

I'm all for educating people about polyamory being a valid relationship structure, but I'm also mindful of protecting a "safe space" for people who are in a minority. That's not to say poly people are victims, and non-poly people aggressors, but broadly tarring all non-solo poly relationships as "unethical" does impede on the "safeness" of this space for a poly person. In my opinion, anyway.

I think IP is sensitive and compassionate enough to see your view in this, and may well turn out to agree with you -- as I tend to do.

It's not like she's being a raving arse, however. She's on a learning curve like the rest of us.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

I think seeing, discussing, and trying to understand multiple points of view is extremely valuable.

Me too. One of the things I like most about this board is that people do discuss different points of view with respect and kindness.

I think that learning happens at the edges of comfort zones and I tend to seek out people who are not like me but who are willing to discuss different view points.

In this case "personal philosophy" might be the same thing.

Leetah - Ah - yes. Good idea. I am very happy to say that legal marriages and primary/secondary poly relationship structures do not fit in with my personal philosophy if that phrase has less problematic connotations.

In a poly context, it reminds me of an article I wrote about the perversion of the concept of gifts -- briefly, that Western culture has lost touch with the JOY to be derived from doing something nice for someone for no particular reason: not as repayment, or bribe, or quid pro quo.

Ravenscroft - This sounds fascinating. I'd love to hear more if you have time.

River - Martín Prechtel's talks sound well worth a listen. I will look them up when I have time.

Thanks for the wonderful chats everyone. I have found much to ponder over and think about here.

IP

 

[IndieSolo]

. . . on a poly site which many would consider a safe space for polyamorous people.

Firstly, this is a public internet forum. We do our best to create a respectful poly-friendly atmosphere, free of ad hominem attacks (and trolls and spammers), endless arguing, and meta-discussions -- and you can disagree with others' views, but keep in mind that it is not guaranteed to be a "safe space." You should get it out of your head that any public forum is safe, whatever you mean by safe. If you paid a fee to belong here, that is one thing. But you didn't. We are neither private nor able to guarantee any sort of protection from people's opinions you don't like here. The only place we can be more proactive about protecting posters is in the Blogs forum, where we can delete offensive posts at a blogger's request.

As with all public spaces, it is the responsibility of each person who joins here to take precautions to protect themselves. For example, we cannot protect anyone's anonymity, so if you do not want to "out" yourself as poly, you use aliases in your posts and don't reveal too much detailed personal information. We can't do that for anyone; it is up the each member to do that for themselves.

There are plenty of polyfolk here who not only do not mind IP's viewpoint, but also find her writings stimulating and thought-provoking. However, if you take offense at InfinitePossibility's posts, you can take the precaution to protect yourself by adding her username to your Ignore List (found in your User CP), and her posts will no longer be visible to you. If you want to play in this playground, but don't like how one of the other kids plays, that would be your safety helmet.

This forum is searchable by Google and anyone who registers can post here. There is room here for folks who do not identify as poyamorous, and who are not in poly arrangements and do not wish to be, whether they are just curious, trying to figure out if it fits into their lives or not, or simply enjoy conversing with us freaks. Anyway, InfinitePossibility is more than welcome here.

Now, let's get back to discussing ethics and polyamory, shall we?

 

[MightyMax]

Firstly, this is a public internet forum. We do our best to create a respectful poly-friendly atmosphere, free of ad hominem attacks (and trolls and spammers), endless arguing, and meta-discussions -- and you can disagree with others' views, but keep in mind that it is not guaranteed to be a "safe space." You should get it out of your head that any public forum is safe, whatever you mean by safe. If you paid a fee to belong here, that is one thing. But you didn't. We are neither private nor able to guarantee any sort of protection from people's opinions you don't like here. The only place we can be more proactive about protecting posters is in the Blogs forum, where we can delete offensive posts at a blogger's request.

As with all public spaces, it is the responsibility of each person who joins here to take precautions to protect themselves. For example, we cannot protect anyone's anonymity, so if you do not want to "out" yourself as poly, you use aliases in your posts and don't reveal too much detailed personal information. We can't do that for anyone; it is up the each member to do that for themselves.

There are plenty of polyfolk here who not only do not mind IP's viewpoint, but also find her writings stimulating and thought-provoking. However, if you take offense at InfinitePossibility's posts, you can take the precaution to protect yourself by adding her username to your Ignore List (found in your User CP), and her posts will no longer be visible to you. If you want to play in this playground, but don't like how one of the other kids plays, that would be your safety helmet.

This forum is searchable by Google and anyone who registers can post here. There is room here for folks who do not identify as poyamorous, and who are not in poly arrangements and do not wish to be, whether they are just curious, trying to figure out if it fits into their lives or not, or simply enjoy conversing with us freaks. Anyway, InfinitePossibility is more than welcome here.

Now, let's get back to discussing ethics and polyamory, shall we?

NYCindie, you're too late. We've discussed it and IP has agreed to use a less problematic phrase with fewer negative connotations. I don't expect to come to a poly forum and feel judged for being poly. I don't think any of us do. The phrases that IP used were judgmental.

A safe space usually means a space where the theme of the space, be it poly, female, homosexual or whatever is not up for debate or critique. As a cis white woman, I can understand why you would be ignorant of that concept. You'd rarely have need for one.

Discussing whether polyamory is inherently unethical is in keeping with the topic of ethics and polyamory. Your continual hounding and harassment of me needs to stop today. It's becoming ridiculous.

 

[IndieSolo]

Too late? I don't get it. Yeah, I read where IP said she would use the term "personal philosphy," but I wanted to post what I did for the benefit of everyone. I wanted to remind all readers here that this is a public space and we all need to protect ourselves. The part of my post about safety on a public forum seems like it was directed only to you because you brought it up and I quoted you, but only because you made me realize that it had to be said. But it was meant for everyone and I also wanted everyone to know that IP is welcome here.

I am not continually "harassing" you, jeez. I apologize if it looked that way.

A safe space usually means a space where the theme of the space, be it poly, female, homosexual or whatever is not up for debate or critique. As a cis white woman, I can understand why you would be ignorant of that concept. You'd rarely have need for one.

Well, the above comment is downright laughable! As if I wouldn't know what a safe space is nor ever need one. As if you even know my ethnicity! Hello, I am a woman! My safety is something I think about every day. And please do not refer to me as cis-anything; I do not ID with that prefix. Regarding safety, everyone has different needs for feeling safe. If yours is to not see any posts that disagree with what you feel about poly, then put those people on your Ignore List. Others may feel safe simply by having this forum and being able to post here, regardless of anyone else's stated philosophies.

But now your arguing is turning this into a meta-discussion, so please stop it and let's get back to the questions Ravenscroft posed. Thank you.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

Anyway, InfinitePossibility is more than welcome here.

Thank you. I very much appreciate you taking the time to make that clear.

Now, let's get back to discussing ethics and polyamory, shall we?

I do have a thing here that might be interesting to discuss regarding ethics.

So - a number of people on this thread and in other places on this forum have discussed that they dislike couple privilege. I see these opinions voiced most often on threads where one or both of a married couple turn up saying that they are looking for a bisexual woman to have a relationship with both of them.

I also think that it is commonly agreed on this forum that the world we live in is very couple-centric. People - regardless of their gender or sexual orientation - are expected to either be part of a couple or to be looking to be part of a couple. Monogamy is assumed most of the time. The world is set up for people to have one romantic partner.

This couple-centric tendency is likely to result in people in couples having a certain amount of privilege anyway. As an example - in the UK any couple is protected by our employment law from being discriminated against on the grounds of them being part of a couple or the grounds of who their partner is. There is no such protection offered to single people.

Given this. For the people who are part of a couple, who want to protect that relationship (which is understandable) and who want an external relationship, how do you go about identifying secondary partners who want to be secondary partners? What measures do you put in place to try and make sure you don't treat secondary partners badly in order to protect yourself or your existing relationship? Or that you don't treat your existing partner badly in order to try and hold onto a secondary partner?

The reason that I ask this is to do with a part of my life not related to romance at all. I am very heavily involved in a community who's focus is on some types of platonic relationships. The community I am part of is a small but growing minority.

The majority view for this type of relationship is that it must proceed by following what I'll call here The Buttercup Rules. The Buttercup Rules involve a certain amount of emotional intimidation being applied in the relationship in the name of keeping order and making things safe. The justification is that without at least a small amount of emotional distress things get dangerous. Followers of The Buttercup Rules argue that it is necessary and that they work to keep distress to a minimum. They often cite enthusiastic consent and being loved by those they are in the relationships with as evidence that the distress caused is minimal and that it is okay because The Buttercup Rules keep everybody safe.

The community I'm part of doesn't agree. We follow The Sweetpea Rules. We don't agree that any emotional intimidation is needed to keep things safe and we work hard to find other ways to do things. This is a growing minority because followers of The Sweetpea Rules get on better on the whole. Even novices can do things that followers of The Buttercup Rules would say are impossible. Those that are very experienced are doing mind blowing work and pushing the boundaries of our understandings of that kind of relationship.

Even so, for the moment, The Buttercup Rules are the norm. They are what everybody grows up feeling comfortable with, people tend to know without thinking how to follow them and what lots of people believe strongly must be done to keep things safe. To step away from them is a big deal and to keep away after years of practising them takes work and effort.

This stuff isn't something you can always be in the closet about. It is visible and obvious to anybody who observes the relationship in action which means that followers of The Sweetpea Rules are often stopped by strangers and told they are going about things all wrong. They are accused of making things dangerous, of causing harm and confusion and chaos. This is not at all unusual and was something I experienced - not for the first time - during the summer.

There is significant pressure to slip back into The Buttercup Rules and they are the norm which can make it harder to resist. Some followers of The Sweetpea Rules find themselves regularly in tears or going home distressed after encounters with Buttercup Rules followers.

Nevertheless, we Sweetpea Rules followers strongly feel that we are doing the right thing. To avoid slipping and to support each other, we share scientific studies that support our view. We share anecdotes about how well it works. We talk a lot about safety and how to manage it. We make sure that we have an understanding that the safety claimed by Buttercup followers is an illusion. We also learn enough about human psychology to know that we are all at risk of slipping into Buttercup Rules and so we need these steps to remind us of the path we have chosen and to keep us on it.

Many of us do lots of formal studying and top up our learning as often as we can do. Many join professional bodies that stipulate following the Sweetpea Rules.

We examine our own behaviour often, questioning ourselves and each other about whether or not something that we tend to do is okay or if we need to adjust it. We are often to be found discussing and questioning our own behaviour.

All of this means that if I am accosted in the street by a Buttercup follower and accused of doing things all wrong, I have hundreds of anecdotes and lots of scientific evidence to share with them in support of what I'm doing. I can talk for hours about this stuff if need be.

If I meet somebody new I know what topics to bring up to determine if they are a Sweetpea follower and potential new friend or colleague or if they are a firm Buttercup follower in which case we probably won't form any kind of relationship.

All of this examining of my own behaviour to check if it is in line with my personal philosophy and also knowing how to find others who follow the same philosophy seems normal to me and is very normal in the community I'm part of.

IP

 

[MightyMax]

Too late? I don't get it. Yeah, I read where IP said she would use the term "personal philosphy," but I wanted to post what I did for the benefit of everyone. I wanted to remind all readers here that this is a public space and we all need to protect ourselves. The part of my post about safety on a public forum seems like it was directed only to you because you brought it up and I quoted you, but only because you made me realize that it had to be said. But it was meant for everyone and I also wanted everyone to know that IP is welcome here.

I am not continually "harassing" you, jeez. I apologize if it looked that way.



Well, the above comment is downright laughable! As if I wouldn't know what a safe space is nor ever need one. As if you even know my ethnicity! Hello, I am a woman! My safety is something I think about every day. And please do not refer to me as cis-anything; I do not ID with that prefix. Regarding safety, everyone has different needs for feeling safe. If yours is to not see any posts that disagree with what you feel about poly, then put those people on your Ignore List. Others may feel safe simply by having this forum and being able to post here, regardless of anyone else's stated philosophies.

But now your arguing is turning this into a meta-discussion, so please stop it and let's get back to the questions Ravenscroft posed. Thank you.

You should get it out of your head that any public forum is safe, whatever you mean by safe

.

You didn't understand what I meant by safe so I explained. I have done nothing in this thread except for discuss the ethics of polyamory. You need to BACK OFF and stop your continual harassment of me on this site. There is NO NEED for you to comment. You are NOT MODERATING, you are unfairly HOUNDING me and it needs to stop NOW. I will reply to any issues raised in any post in any thread like everyone else does without you on my back the whole time. IP agreed to use a less problematic phrase, the discussion would have been over if you stopped insisting on harassing me. Now stop. Today. Right now.

 

[MightyMax]

Thank you. I very much appreciate you taking the time to make that clear.



I do have a thing here that might be interesting to discuss regarding ethics.

So - a number of people on this thread and in other places on this forum have discussed that they dislike couple privilege. I see these opinions voiced most often on threads where one or both of a married couple turn up saying that they are looking for a bisexual woman to have a relationship with both of them.

I also think that it is commonly agreed on this forum that the world we live in is very couple-centric. People - regardless of their gender or sexual orientation - are expected to either be part of a couple or to be looking to be part of a couple. Monogamy is assumed most of the time. The world is set up for people to have one romantic partner.

This couple-centric tendency is likely to result in people in couples having a certain amount of privilege anyway. As an example - in the UK any couple is protected by our employment law from being discriminated against on the grounds of them being part of a couple or the grounds of who their partner is. There is no such protection offered to single people.

Given this. For the people who are part of a couple, who want to protect that relationship (which is understandable) and who want an external relationship, how do you go about identifying secondary partners who want to be secondary partners? What measures do you put in place to try and make sure you don't treat secondary partners badly in order to protect yourself or your existing relationship? Or that you don't treat your existing partner badly in order to try and hold onto a secondary partner?

The reason that I ask this is to do with a part of my life not related to romance at all. I am very heavily involved in a community who's focus is on some types of platonic relationships. The community I am part of is a small but growing minority.

The majority view for this type of relationship is that it must proceed by following what I'll call here The Buttercup Rules. The Buttercup Rules involve a certain amount of emotional intimidation being applied in the relationship in the name of keeping order and making things safe. The justification is that without at least a small amount of emotional distress things get dangerous. Followers of The Buttercup Rules argue that it is necessary and that they work to keep distress to a minimum. They often cite enthusiastic consent and being loved by those they are in the relationships with as evidence that the distress caused is minimal and that it is okay because The Buttercup Rules keep everybody safe.

The community I'm part of doesn't agree. We follow The Sweetpea Rules. We don't agree that any emotional intimidation is needed to keep things safe and we work hard to find other ways to do things. This is a growing minority because followers of The Sweetpea Rules get on better on the whole. Even novices can do things that followers of The Buttercup Rules would say are impossible. Those that are very experienced are doing mind blowing work and pushing the boundaries of our understandings of that kind of relationship.

Even so, for the moment, The Buttercup Rules are the norm. They are what everybody grows up feeling comfortable with, people tend to know without thinking how to follow them and what lots of people believe strongly must be done to keep things safe. To step away from them is a big deal and to keep away after years of practising them takes work and effort.

This stuff isn't something you can always be in the closet about. It is visible and obvious to anybody who observes the relationship in action which means that followers of The Sweetpea Rules are often stopped by strangers and told they are going about things all wrong. They are accused of making things dangerous, of causing harm and confusion and chaos. This is not at all unusual and was something I experienced - not for the first time - during the summer.

There is significant pressure to slip back into The Buttercup Rules and they are the norm which can make it harder to resist. Some followers of The Sweetpea Rules find themselves regularly in tears or going home distressed after encounters with Buttercup Rules followers.

Nevertheless, we Sweetpea Rules followers strongly feel that we are doing the right thing. To avoid slipping and to support each other, we share scientific studies that support our view. We share anecdotes about how well it works. We talk a lot about safety and how to manage it. We make sure that we have an understanding that the safety claimed by Buttercup followers is an illusion. We also learn enough about human psychology to know that we are all at risk of slipping into Buttercup Rules and so we need these steps to remind us of the path we have chosen and to keep us on it.

Many of us do lots of formal studying and top up our learning as often as we can do. Many join professional bodies that stipulate following the Sweetpea Rules.

We examine our own behaviour often, questioning ourselves and each other about whether or not something that we tend to do is okay or if we need to adjust it. We are often to be found discussing and questioning our own behaviour.

All of this means that if I am accosted in the street by a Buttercup follower and accused of doing things all wrong, I have hundreds of anecdotes and lots of scientific evidence to share with them in support of what I'm doing. I can talk for hours about this stuff if need be.

If I meet somebody new I know what topics to bring up to determine if they are a Sweetpea follower and potential new friend or colleague or if they are a firm Buttercup follower in which case we probably won't form any kind of relationship.

All of this examining of my own behaviour to check if it is in line with my personal philosophy and also knowing how to find others who follow the same philosophy seems normal to me and is very normal in the community I'm part of.

IP

Can I ask, if buttercups use emotional intimidation, what do sweetpeas use? I'm not sure I understand that bit.


Anyway, to answer your question about finding secondary partners, it mainly comes down to compatibility. At this stage, due to the obligations and expectations I already have and want to keep and grow, I tend to shy away from unpartnered poly people because many, if not most, will be looking for a "primary" partner and even if we could find a mutually satisfying space to develop a more secondary relationship, I know from experience that it can be difficult and messy to do things that way around. So, to sum up, I firstly ensure that me and the other person have similar obligations and similar desires for additional relationships. If they have, I will free myself to spend time with them with the intention of seeing what we can develop.

I do this just through talking. Of course, you have to be wary of people who are lonely and so bend to be your perfect person, something that can never last and a sure way for hurt and a nasty break up. Been there. So, as much as possible, I hold back from "dating" until I can be sure of what they are looking for. Many people I date will be known to me as a friend (maybe a swinging friend) for a substantial time before we "date" for that reason. I want to know we want the same things and can give each other what we need without it leading to mismatched desires and unnecessary pain.

I think age is a factor. People in their late thirties and forties seem to be less inclined to get into relationships which are doomed to fail. They are more accepting of having people in your life in ways that actually work: "Sure, in another life we could be lovers, but in this one we only work as friends and friends are great."

Any of my friends, partners or family can expect me to be emotionally, physically and spiritually supportive to them at any time. There are no rules around who I can help through health issues and how. Everyone I love would be fine with me cancelling on them to help someone else I love on distress. They'd help me help them.

I'm less wary of people who may be unpartnered but seem full immersed in a solo poly lifestyle that is working for them. You can always tell the solo players who just want a spouse. Not that there is anything wrong with wanting one, I'm just very cautious around people who are obviously living their life in a way that is dishonest to themselves. It seems like a sure way for someone to get hurt. I think to put it succinctly, I mainly seek people who already have most of what they want or do not want what I cannot give them. The people I date either don't want a primary relationship or already have one.

As for my existing relationships, they all have clear expectations. We are quite independent so it would be hard to completely neglect a partner. When we are living together, I will make dates without checking in, but I'll keep in mind that we need time too, so I would never not leave any time at all for my partners. I make sure any financial obligations are taken care of before I use money for leisure. We know where we stand on live-in partners. If I want to do something like go away with another partner, or a friend, or alone, I make sure I do that little bit extra before I go. I make sure my partners feel free to do the same.

As I've got older, relationships have become more of a genuine, spontaneous meeting of minds and less of an attempt to try and weld two odd bits of metal into something beautiful.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I have no fing idea what an fnord is, was or may become.

Okay, a brief side-trip then. The best explicator was Robert Anton Wilson, who used general semantics to demonstrate its use.

Generally, a fnord is an emotionally-loaded buzzword that sets off a reflexive reaction, sometimes violent. As a society/culture, we are so inured to these tropes that we rarely see that we are being manipulated, much less that we're using them to manipulate others. Hence, as the Erisians claimed, fnords are invisible.

A small example would be "I have no fing idea what an fnord is, was or may become." This is your way of indicating that there's something wrong with me, & I need to be mildly ridiculed so that others are inoculated a little. The sentence is an overlong way of saying "I don't understand. Could you explain?" which in part might have admitted to a lack of omniscience.

Augh -- sorry, I definitiely DO NOT intend that to be harsh!! I've got a waspish, sarcastic bent, & I've said offhand "funny" stuff that's hurt people I care about, & (lacking voice-tone & eyerolls) the point I was trying to make here is that we all do it to some degree. Once aware of it, we can choose to ignore the fnord or to study it like an interesting bug.

A fnord can be used to shape a conversation (infinitesimally or grossly) or to hide one's own deficiencies (real or imaginary) or simply to derail communication entirely & turn it into a screeching primal fight. (As Tim Leary said, politics is most appropriately discussed on all fours.) The concept is very useful in examining passive aggression. Fnords play an important role in education, propaganda, & advertising.

 

[Ravenscroft]

I've experienced a LOT of maltreatment (and lack of acceptance) as an out poly guy. Polyamory, in my experience, is the less socially accepted way of being.

What is needed is for us not to be so defensive, and to be open and honest about our love.

This set off some thoughts, though I don't know if you had any intention of tying the pieces together.

On my last pass through college, I would occasionally hang out with the University Gay Community, which was perhaps non-PC in that they were tightly focussed on the needs & experiences of... well, male homosexuals. I'm maybe a Kinsey 2, but they were warm & welcoming, & chatting with them helped to formulate some of my early thoughts about bisexuality, polyamory, householding, etc.

Skipping ahead. I'd been "out" poly for ~15 years, & went with Nancy, one of my lovers (together a decade at that point), to a poly get-together weekend. Maybe 30-40 people showed up, max. We had workshops & lunches & discussions late into the night, & it was the most G-rated fun I'd had in a long time.

But on the second day, there was a married couple that just sorta irked me. I mean, they seemed okay at the topical event earlier, & while new to the concept they had plenty to say. Call 'em Barb & Kris.

In the evening, we had a pre-dinner social hour by the pool. Nancy & I weren't joined at the hip, so we circulated independently, greeting old friends & meeting new ones. I happened to glance over as Barb walked up to Nancy & they began chatting, but I thought it odd how Kris stood off to the side, studiously not-watching, & away from the main melee as if to avoid conversation.

A few minutes later, I'd strolled halfway around the room, & looked over the mob toward Nancy. Kris & Barb were standing close to Nancy, & I'm sure it was coincidence they'd moved further away, halfway down the length of the pool, & that Nancy was the furthest away, sorta boxed in with the pool at her back.

Skip ahead. In the end I pointed out that it sure looked like they'd showed up just to snag a poly-aware woman & create a closed FMF triad (which turned out to be spot on), never to deal again with "the community."

I thus got into trouble with a few people, who accused me of trying to force my definition of poly on everyone else & saying "your polyamory is NOT okay!" & similar stuff. After that, nobody wanted to side openly with me, to say that trying to break up other people's relationships is Perhaps Not Cool, or that it was maybe a buzzkill to do so at a social event where people are trying to take a risk of being emotionally open & honest with relative strangers.

Thinking back to UGC, those guys WOULD have discussed analogous behavior, likely with the parties involved. I mean, they took that "community" stuff as central t their mission. And they were a tight-knit, strong, calm group despite constant badgering by Evangelicals with nothing better to do.

I wanted "the poly community" to be like that, & not just a loose gaggle of whoever wants to claim the label. Like, people who could actually trust each other, lean on each other, rely on each other.

Again, maybe that's kinda in line with the "ethical polyamory" thing, that actual intertwined community with IRL roots, a subset of the Internet world where we can have 100,000 "friends" on Facebook & nobody to go out for coffee with.

 

[Ravenscroft]

You should get it out of your head that any public forum is safe, whatever you mean by safe. If you paid a fee to belong here, that is one thing. But you didn't. We are neither private nor able to guarantee any sort of protection from people's opinions you don't like here.

Thank you!! I spent YEARS trying to get PMM to make a similar succint statement.

I paraphrase a former Supreme Court justice: The first right is the right to be left the hell alone, & that includes clubs & organizations that don't want to dilute focus by allowing JUST ANYONE to walk in & take control. While a democracy functions to protect minorities from the whims of majorities, websites are only so much a "public soapbox" as the landlords wish to tolerate -- "free speech" only exists on the Internet as a whole, & dissenters are free to start their own forums.

And I would say that the SECOND right is the right to be annoyed -- NOT to be shielded from annoyance in "a safe space."

 

[Ravenscroft]

...oh, good heavens, I'm never gonna get out of this thread...

The Buttercup Rules involve a certain amount of emotional intimidation being applied in the relationship in the name of keeping order and making things safe. The justification is that without at least a small amount of emotional distress things get dangerous. ... They often cite enthusiastic consent and being loved by those they are in the relationships with as evidence that the distress caused is minimal and that it is okay because The Buttercup Rules keep everybody safe.

The community I'm part of doesn't agree. We follow The Sweetpea Rules. We don't agree that any emotional intimidation is needed to keep things safe and we work hard to find other ways to do things. This is a growing minority because followers of The Sweetpea Rules get on better on the whole. Even novices can do things that followers of The Buttercup Rules would say are impossible. Those that are very experienced are doing mind blowing work and pushing the boundaries of our understandings of that kind of relationship.

Even so, for the moment, The Buttercup Rules are the norm. They are what everybody grows up feeling comfortable with, people tend to know without thinking how to follow them and what lots of people believe strongly must be done to keep things safe. To step away from them is a big deal and to keep away after years of practising them takes work and effort.

I am awestruck.Many similarities to cobwebby thoughts, & the dust may take awhile to clear...

 

[River]

Okay, a brief side-trip then. The best explicator was Robert Anton Wilson, who used general semantics to demonstrate its use.

Generally, a fnord is an emotionally-loaded buzzword that sets off a reflexive reaction, sometimes violent. As a society/culture, we are so inured to these tropes that we rarely see that we are being manipulated, much less that we're using them to manipulate others. Hence, as the Erisians claimed, fnords are invisible.

A small example would be "I have no fing idea what an fnord is, was or may become." This is your way of indicating that there's something wrong with me, & I need to be mildly ridiculed so that others are inoculated a little. The sentence is an overlong way of saying "I don't understand. Could you explain?" which in part might have admitted to a lack of omniscience.

Augh -- sorry, I definitiely DO NOT intend that to be harsh!! I've got a waspish, sarcastic bent, & I've said offhand "funny" stuff that's hurt people I care about, & (lacking voice-tone & eyerolls) the point I was trying to make here is that we all do it to some degree. Once aware of it, we can choose to ignore the fnord or to study it like an interesting bug.

A fnord can be used to shape a conversation (infinitesimally or grossly) or to hide one's own deficiencies (real or imaginary) or simply to derail communication entirely & turn it into a screeching primal fight. (As Tim Leary said, politics is most appropriately discussed on all fours.) The concept is very useful in examining passive aggression. Fnords play an important role in education, propaganda, & advertising.

The underlined portion of the quoted material is simply not true in the smallest. My expression of puzzlement was definitely NOT any kind of accusation ... of any sort. If you knew me face-to-face you'd understand how my subtle humor and playfulness works -- in time. And you'd soon see that I only accuse those who have earned the accusation as I consciously see it. I do not toss random unconscious accusations around much -- and didn't in this instance.

My actual expression was meant to convey the sort of puzzlement which one may experience after spending half an hour googling a word and finding that there's little by way of dictionary or other help ... and when the various definitions and usages are so many and so different that only puzzlement can result (until going much deeper into the research project).

 

[Ravenscroft]

Yah, that's what I figured. It's this darn typewritten language stuff, which doesn't merely strip away layers of nuance, but actually ADDS noise by leaving gaps for our little brains to fill in. I added that I wasn't PO'd or anything, choosing to side with the warmth/depth I've seen in your posts.

 

[River]

Also, I was having a bit of fun with the alliteration or slant rhyme: fnord, fing....

I'm sure there will be one or two who are wondering what the f an fing is.

 

[IndieSolo]

Thank you!! I spent YEARS trying to get PMM to make a similar succint statement.

I paraphrase a former Supreme Court justice: The first right is the right to be left the hell alone, & that includes clubs & organizations that don't want to dilute focus by allowing JUST ANYONE to walk in & take control. While a democracy functions to protect minorities from the whims of majorities, websites are only so much a "public soapbox" as the landlords wish to tolerate -- "free speech" only exists on the Internet as a whole, & dissenters are free to start their own forums.

And I would say that the SECOND right is the right to be annoyed -- NOT to be shielded from annoyance in "a safe space."

And thank you for responding. It's good to know that someone "gets it" and understood that my statement was directed to everyone, and was only meant to be a general comment about "safe spaces" not being guaranteed online and how we can protect ourselves here. What I wrote is part of a longer statement we Moderators worked on over a few months when we were focused on re-writing our Guidelines (but that project has been set aside temporarily).

The other issue is that a lot of people come here and think this site is based in the US or Canada, but its servers and the site owner are located in Europe, so certain concepts that people bring up about what rights or protections they have do not necessarily coincide with the legal system they expect it to.

I am also finding what you've written about fnords very interesting. I am going to see if I can read up a little bit more about them.

As for ethics in polyamory, since ethics is so subjective and culturally/societally based, my approach is simply to treat others the way I want to be treated in relationships. The good old Golden Rule.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

Can I ask, if buttercups use emotional intimidation, what do sweetpeas use? I'm not sure I understand that bit.

So. Sweetpea followers will use basically two techniques. 1. They will set things up so that the other is more likely to succeed and if what they do doesn't work, they see that as their responsibility and change the plan for next time. 2. They provide extensive feedback about what is going well - even if it is just a tiny part of what is needed to be done.

I guess that much of the divide between the two groups comes from broadly how they view other people.

Sweetpea followers are much more likely to think along the lines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and believe that humans are essentially good and that much of the problems in the world are caused by the institutions that govern us.

Buttercup followers are much more likely to fall in line with the view Thomas Hobbes had of humanity - a bunch of self serving, often violent individuals who must be kept in line with the strict rule of law to prevent them just being vile to each other.

 

[MightyMax]

1. They will set things up so that the other is more likely to succeed and if what they do doesn't work, they see that as their responsibility and change the plan for next time.

Can you explain this bit in the context of polyamory, please? I'm thinking you basically mean that if you find a partner and it ends badly, you should adjust your technique/requirements so you don't repeat the same mistakes.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

I'm thinking you basically mean that if you find a partner and it ends badly, you should adjust your technique/requirements so you don't repeat the same mistakes.

If applying this to poly, I'd be thinking more widely. Relationships don't just start and then end. You need to pay attention to what is going on while they are happening and adjust them as you are going on. I suspect poly folks are fairly good at doing this on the whole.

Also - it is not simply a person's own requirements that they should pay attention to. The requirements of the others are just as relevant. You've outlined paying attention to that very clearly in your previous post.

Also - before you even start, assessing where you are is good. Somebody who is good with people and part of a community where poly is widely practised is in a very different place than somebody who has been married to the same person since they were 20, has lost or never had good skills with people, who's spouse doesn't like the idea of non-monogamy, who is parenting a couple of small children and works a full time job.

That sort of thing I think if you were to apply it to poly. I'll think about it some more and see if I can come up with anything else. It's an interesting question.