Why Do You or Don't You Self Identify As Poly

(SEASONEDpolyAgain wrote:)

People have even dropped the "consent" aspect and stuck with "knowledge" because "consent" implies permission.
Click to expand...

I can understand that perspective - and I can certainly see that point being made in RA circles, but, much like Kevin, I do not equate "consent" with "permission". I view consent as an informed, voluntary agreement - as one might view the term in relation the general phrase "consensual non-monogamy" (not permission granted so much as a consensual agreement).

But, ultimately, the interpretation of consent and permission is subjective, and opinions will obviously vary.

And, in contrast to RA circles, those of us who have transitioned long term marriages (complete with kids and mortgages) to poly probably relate more to the idea of a consensual agreement than would a single solo-poly / RA person. Opinions vary.

Just a few more cents worth,

Al
 
Magdlyn said:
You're welcome to your opinion. Asking for consent, in my opinion, in no way implies a power imbalance. It's just polite.

Bill: Hey babe, I want to go meet my platonic friend so and so at the local brew pub on Thursday. Is that OK with you?

Barb: Sure. But can you go after 7? I wanted you to help me move that heavy plant out to the deck after I get home from work.

Where is the power to limit Bill's actions there? He could say, "Sure, no problem." Or, "I can only see my friend from 6:30 til 8:30, since they won't be available otherwise. Can we move the plant another time?"

I don't see why adding romance to the equation changes the negotiation.




I don't understand what you're asking. That's a very complicated specific situation. If one wants to close and other doesn't, they end the relationship, or keep talking until they reach a compromise, or one of them decides to cheat. Where is the power imbalance?



You mean requesting joyful consent to your dating? Are you fine with angry resentful "consent" followed by tears, passive aggressive punishment, etc.? What is your ideal practice and outcome?

"I know you are dating so and so, and I hate her, and I hate how you act around her, but go ahead, I'll be fine!"

Yeah, right.



Telling someone how to feel is moronic. Who is suggesting that?
Click to expand...


Basically, in relationships, actually especially long term relationships, there are things one might do to keep the relationship that they would prefer weren't part of their lives. This could be moving home, it could be a financial cut to accommodate a change in career, it could be a number of things. Suggesting that someone's consent is only valid if they are "joyful" negates someone's right to say yes to something and absolutely feel that is the preferable option, but not feel "joyful" about it.

Part of what got me to thinking this way was actually hearing people who were outraged when it was suggested their poly partner leave them as they obviously didn't *really* consent due to their lack of "joyfullness".
 
Al99 said:
(SEASONEDpolyAgain wrote:)



I can understand that perspective - and I can certainly see that point being made in RA circles, but, much like Kevin, I do not equate "consent" with "permission". I view consent as an informed, voluntary agreement - as one might view the term in relation the general phrase "consensual non-monogamy" (not permission granted so much as a consensual agreement).

But, ultimately, the interpretation of consent and permission is subjective, and opinions will obviously vary.

And, in contrast to RA circles, those of us who have transitioned long term marriages (complete with kids and mortgages) to poly probably relate more to the idea of a consensual agreement than would a single solo-poly / RA person. Opinions vary.

Just a few more cents worth,

Al
Click to expand...

If I'm a poly person and I get with someone who somewhere down the line in our relationship, withdraws consent, do I then have to then become monogamous to consensually remain in the relationship?

I think this becomes more blurry when you move it away from opening a closed relationship.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
If I'm a poly person and I get with someone who somewhere down the line in our relationship, withdraws consent, do I then have to then become monogamous to consensually remain in the relationship?

I think this becomes more blurry when you move it away from opening a closed relationship.
Click to expand...

According to what you are saying, no consent is needed at all. So if the person with whom you are in a relationship decides they no longer want you to date other people, all is fine as long as they know you are still dating other people. How is that going to work? That is the problem with taking things to an abstract nth degree.
 
Al99 said:
And, in contrast to RA circles, those of us who have transitioned long term marriages (complete with kids and mortgages) to poly probably relate more to the idea of a consensual agreement than would a single solo-poly / RA person. Opinions vary.
Click to expand...

Some of us transitioned long term relationships from ... monogamish but codependent/entangled ... to something pretty based in nonhierarchy and philosophically grounded in RA - it's not an either/or category there... :)

But that said, I do agree that sometimes a relationship can have a price of admission, to quote Dan Savage (as problematic as he can be sometimes). I don't think that makes it so that someone can't be joyful about the rest of the relationship though. I mean, the price of my relationship with Knight is that I live with someone who is more companionate, most days, than a lover and that's not necessarily what I'd choose if I was building my life from scratch BUT I joyfully choose him, and us, and his other choices as part of my life regardless.

And realistically, if some day he chooses that he and Joan make more sense as a mono couple (I can't imagine this set of circumstances but it's the most obvious example), whether I consent to that change or not, I can't force him to stay in relationship with me. So the idea of "consenting" to a relationship is .... a little bit weird. I mean, honestly "be in a relationship" is an action, a thing both people have to DO, not just have done to, even more than sex. (joyful yes as a standard for consent makes sense when you're trying to avoid "lie back and think of England" sex as a baseline... but that's a different subject entirely)

I do think that if your choices are actively making someone you (theoretically) love miserable, you need to rethink those choices - not because they can passively aggressively punish you, not because that partner should be able to control you, but because holding someone in a state of pain is unethical and at some point you need to either walk away or not. But I also think that it's unethical to try and control someone and that one should walk away before doing so (ie if I can't tolerate with reasonable equanimity my partner's dating choices, I need to think long and hard about the choice to make them my partner.
 
vinsanity0 said:
According to what you are saying, no consent is needed at all. So if the person with whom you are in a relationship decides they no longer want you to date other people, all is fine as long as they know you are still dating other people. How is that going to work? That is the problem with taking things to an abstract nth degree.
Click to expand...

Yes I am saying that consent might not be something that is necessary at all. Everyone does need to know though.


"When does "knowledge" become "consent?" is probably the better debate.
 
Re (from SEASONEDpolyAgain):
"Suggesting that someone's consent is only valid if they are 'joyful' negates someone's right to say yes to something and absolutely feel that is the preferable option, but not feel 'joyful' about it."
Click to expand...

I strongly agree.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
Yes I am saying that consent might not be something that is necessary at all. Everyone does need to know though.


"When does "knowledge" become "consent?" is probably the better debate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I would suggest that defining consent - at least to one's own satisfaction - might be a necessary precursor to that debate. Whether consent is viewed as authoritarian-type permission or an informed, voluntary, and consensual relationship agreement (the latter obviously being my take).


(SEASONEDpolyAgain also wrote: )

If I'm a poly person and I get with someone who somewhere down the line in our relationship, withdraws consent, do I then have to then become monogamous to consensually remain in the relationship?

I think this becomes more blurry when you move it away from opening a closed relationship.
Click to expand...

My take would be that at that point - both of the partners would have to look at redefining the voluntary, consensual agreement that is in place - even if easier said than done.

Al
 
This occurred to me as I was completing my last post. Thoughts?

Dick and Jane are married and monogamous. Dick and Jane decide to be poly. Jane gets a boyfriend. Dick is ok with that, thinking it is just a casual, sexual relationship. But Jane and Boyfriend fall madly in love, and Dick is not ok with that. So he withdraws consent and demands they return to mono.

What happens? Jane has options. She may choose to agree and return to mono (most likely with regret and resentment). She may choose to tell Dick that she is unwilling to give up her boyfriend (and is prepared to terminate the marital contract if he does not agree to remain poly). Then Dick will have options. Dick can relent and agree for Jane to have her boyfriend (and hopefully work toward a healthy acceptance - but may very well end up being resentful - especially if he is doing so because he feels that she has threatened to divorce him if he does not agree to continue poly), or he can tell Jane that they will have to terminate their marital contract if she insists on keeping her boyfriend (because he would rather be divorced than endure the pain that he is feeling). Regardless, an agreement will have to be reached.

It is possible that they could eventually recover and heal from this, but no guarantee of course - and lots of hurt along the way, regardless.

There is certainly the possibility for true consent to cease to exist here - regardless of the final decision - if either feels coerced into their decision. But there is also the possibility of a genuine reconciliation if they can both come to a mutual agreement - in spite of conflicting views - no matter which way the decision goes.

Thoughts on Dick and Jane?
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
Yes I am saying that consent might not be something that is necessary at all. Everyone does need to know though.


"When does "knowledge" become "consent?" is probably the better debate.
Click to expand...
I would say knowledge never becomes consent. They are two different things. One cannot consent without knowledge, but one can have knowledge without consent. I do agree with what you wrote about how consent doesn't have to be "joyful", but I wouldn't consider it healthy if it's not. But I agree with the others that we don't agree on what consent means.
 
Al99 said:
This occurred to me as I was completing my last post. Thoughts?

Dick and Jane are married and monogamous. Dick and Jane decide to be poly. Jane gets a boyfriend. Dick is ok with that, thinking it is just a casual, sexual relationship. But Jane and Boyfriend fall madly in love, and Dick is not ok with that. So he withdraws consent and demands they return to mono.

What happens? Jane has options. She may choose to agree and return to mono (most likely with regret and resentment). She may choose to tell Dick that she is unwilling to give up her boyfriend (and is prepared to terminate the marital contract if he does not agree to remain poly). Then Dick will have options. Dick can relent and agree for Jane to have her boyfriend (and hopefully work toward a healthy acceptance - but may very well end up being resentful - especially if he is doing so because he feels that she has threatened to divorce him if he does not agree to continue poly), or he can tell Jane that they will have to terminate their marital contract if she insists on keeping her boyfriend (because he would rather be divorced than endure the pain that he is feeling). Regardless, an agreement will have to be reached.

It is possible that they could eventually recover and heal from this, but no guarantee of course - and lots of hurt along the way, regardless.

There is certainly the possibility for true consent to cease to exist here - regardless of the final decision - if either feels coerced into their decision. But there is also the possibility of a genuine reconciliation if they can both come to a mutual agreement - in spite of conflicting views - no matter which way the decision goes.

Thoughts on Dick and Jane?
Click to expand...

I'll add to this with my views.

What if Jane does reluctantly decide to give up the BF and sustain the life she has built with Dick because as much as she wants BF, she wants that life more? What if she understandably isn't "joyful"? Does that mean her decision to give up the BF and keep Dick and be monogamous is not real consent? Or can people see she had a tough decision and chose the least crappy option?

Or, what if they are at an impasse where Jane refuses to stop seeing BF and Dick is unhappy about it but Jane is a good hinge and keeps her problems on her side of the fence so she's the only one who deals with any backlash but mostly it's just grumbling silence when the "poly issue" comes to the surface. Dick doesnt like it and Jane doesnt like that he doesn't like it, but they both choose not to leave the relationship. Does Dick's knowledge in that situation tip into consent? If not, why not? He could leave if he really doesn't like it but he chooses to keep Jane instead.
 
Yes I am saying that consent might not be something that is necessary at all. Everyone does need to know though.
Click to expand...

I was reflecting on this thought - as we sit around sheltering in place. :)

It did occur to me that if consent is not "permission" but an informed, voluntary consensual agreement - then I do believe that, for many, that is a necessary element for many who practice polyamory. So - my wife and I are poly. We each have other partners whom we love, but part of what makes it poly (for us, anyway, and I suspect for many) is that there is a specific agreement in place as to what this looks like (broadly, anyway) - a consensual agreement. And really - one might say that (for a married, mono couple) - just agreeing to have other partners (an obvious first step), is consent (or consensual agreement).

For others, though, especially those more RA-inclined, perhaps knowledge alone is sufficient. And as was suggested earlier in the thread - perhaps knowledge implies consent.

Al
 
Al99 said:
This occurred to me as I was completing my last post. Thoughts?

Dick and Jane are married and monogamous. Dick and Jane decide to be poly. Jane gets a boyfriend. Dick is ok with that, thinking it is just a casual, sexual relationship. But Jane and Boyfriend fall madly in love, and Dick is not ok with that. So he withdraws consent and demands they return to mono.

What happens? Jane has options. She may choose to agree and return to mono (most likely with regret and resentment). She may choose to tell Dick that she is unwilling to give up her boyfriend (and is prepared to terminate the marital contract if he does not agree to remain poly). Then Dick will have options. Dick can relent and agree for Jane to have her boyfriend (and hopefully work toward a healthy acceptance - but may very well end up being resentful - especially if he is doing so because he feels that she has threatened to divorce him if he does not agree to continue poly), or he can tell Jane that they will have to terminate their marital contract if she insists on keeping her boyfriend (because he would rather be divorced than endure the pain that he is feeling). Regardless, an agreement will have to be reached.

It is possible that they could eventually recover and heal from this, but no guarantee of course - and lots of hurt along the way, regardless.

There is certainly the possibility for true consent to cease to exist here - regardless of the final decision - if either feels coerced into their decision. But there is also the possibility of a genuine reconciliation if they can both come to a mutual agreement - in spite of conflicting views - no matter which way the decision goes.

Thoughts on Dick and Jane?
Click to expand...

So I have what may appear to be a semantic quibble to your argument, but it strikes to the heart of the philosophical problem.

Dick and Jane have *agreed* to be in a relationship, and *agreed* on what the parameters of that relationship are. (There's some legal framework around that, but that is almost orthogonal to the agreement itself - one can dissolve the agreement to be in relationship far easier than the legalities and let the legalities catch up, or one can set up ones' relationship in a way that is directly opposite the legal requirements of a marriage).

Dick cannot *consent* to whether or not Jane dates someone else. Dick can draw a boundary around HIS actions - "I, Dick, do not agree to be in a relationship that is not monogamous and *I* will be leaving it if it is not." But that's not *consent*, that's a boundary, and most importantly ***the only actions he controls are his own***. He can stay in that relationship or he can go.

All that said, financial interdependence or co-parenting does make that scenario murkier, especially if Jane, in this case, is the more financially powerful one. Coercion isn't ethical, and certainly the historically common situation of "rich guy has mistress and wife can't afford to leave" isn't ethical. On the other hand, holding someone to an agreement they made in the past when they and their desires have changed isn't ethical either, and there may be no good answer here.
 
So I have what may appear to be a semantic quibble to your argument, but it strikes to the heart of the philosophical problem
Click to expand...
.

I don't really have an answer to the story I posted - just thought it might make for discussion regarding consent. :)

Dick cannot *consent* to whether or not Jane dates someone else. Dick can draw a boundary around HIS actions - "I, Dick, do not agree to be in a relationship that is not monogamous and *I* will be leaving it if it is not." But that's not *consent*, that's a boundary, and most importantly ***the only actions he controls are his own***. He can stay in that relationship or he can go.
Click to expand...

Really good point! And I probably could have worded the story more effectively in that regard. The issue about attempting to impose rules on partners versus having personal boundaries is a key point in understanding healthy poly - one that I have encountered often in poly literature and discussion, and one that my wife and I have often discussed.

Coercion isn't ethical
Click to expand...

And - also thinking about SEASONEDpolyAgain's thoughts on this scenario. Given this scenario, and they are a couple who opened up, I can sympathize with Dick screaming "I can't do this after all!" (and then they could decide on how best to work on it - or decide to walk away from poly - or even split up). But if Dick says - "Break up with him and return to mono or I will divorce you" - is that a coercion to be mono? or not, since they had started mono but (unsuccessfully) tried poly?

Or - if Jane says, "I refuse to give up Boyfriend. We can be poly or divorce" - is that a coercion to remain poly? Probably?

Just some more thoughts....

Al
 
I don't think that is coercion, so much as just consequences of certain choices and actions. It can feel like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Both choices can feel shitty. But you make a choice for the less shitty way to go- the one that will be temporarily shitty, but feel better over time, as opposed to the one that will remain shitty until you or your partner dies.
 
It's not coercion if there is a choice. But if someone has made it difficult for a partner to leave, for instance causing them to be financially dependent, the the choice is a not really a choice. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to give them my wallet or they will shoot, I give them consent to take my wallet under coercion.

I think we are losing sight of how ethics fit into this debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top