Yes, actually, you are. Especially if you continue to have sex with them. You are taking a risk with their body that they have not consented to. I did say earlier that there are things you can do to circumvent the lack of consent if being ethical is important to you, refraining from sex with them is one of the ways to do this. But, yes, I am afraid that once someone has withdrawn their consent, you have to respect that to be thought of as a ethical person. Of course it's easier to simply carry on with what makes you most happy, ie, the marriage and polyamory too, but that isn't ethical once some of the people involved are not giving enthusiastic consent. Best off acknowledging that this isn't working anymore and being brave and moving on to find someone willing to be poly than violating consent. Again, it takes a great degree if altruism to make that decision when an unhappy partner cannot.
Consent: What if it's Not Required?
- Thread starter kdt26417
- Start date
Yes, actually, you are. Especially if you continue to have sex with them. You are taking a risk with their body that they have not consented to. I did say earlier that there are things you can do to circumvent the lack of consent if being ethical is important to you, refraining from sex with them is one of the ways to do this. But, yes, I am afraid that once someone has withdrawn their consent, you have to respect that to be thought of as a ethical person. Of course it's easier to simply carry on with what makes you most happy, ie, the marriage and polyamory too, but that isn't ethical once some of the people involved are not giving enthusiastic consent. Best off acknowledging that this isn't working anymore and being brave and moving on to find someone willing to be poly than violating consent. Again, it takes a great degree if altruism to make that decision when an unhappy partner cannot.
Aaah, but it takes two to tango. You seem to assume that the onus is all on the partner who wants to persist in maintaining both relationships, as if the person who is actually saying NO isn't also responsible for deciding what it is they are not consenting to. If partner says 'no, I do not consent to you seeing other partner, but I will have sex with you anyway even though I know you're still seeing him/her', then it does muddy the water somewhat, no? This is why in that scenario, they are not actually withdrawing their consent to participate in the relationship at all….they are trying to impose a permission-system on their partner's OTHER relationship.
Unless I have explicitly agreed to do so (and the only context I can envisage that is via a power exchange/BDSM type relationship) I am not responsible for maintaining the personal or physical boundaries of my partner. That's their job, as it is mine to manage my own. In the advent that I become upset with being in an open relationship, my first step will be to explain my feelings and see if there is an easy way to resolve it. If my partner is not in agreement, then me withdrawing my consent HAS to mean me walking away from my relationship. My partner is not being unethical for wanting to continue what we had, but they simply cannot be in a relationship with me without my consent. If this is a scenario where my partner wants to open up our relationship from being closed, the same logic applies. If I do not consent to that proposed change in my relationship, then we are no longer in a relationship. You might want to nitpick a little and say in that scenario then it should be my partner who is taking the stand and bringing the relationship to a close because it is they who has the desire to change the parameters, but I take the view that I take care of me. If not continuing a relationship is the best thing for me, then that's an action I should take to maintain my own boundaries. If partner is no longer able to partner me in the way I desire, then I should be free to find someone who will.
Taking a scenario where a husband wants an open marriage, and his wife wants a closed marriage, I wonder if the right thing for both spouses to do is to sit down and decide on something together. If they're going to break up, that would be a joint decision (regardless of who was the last one to change the parameters). Other possibilities would be: they both keep the relationship closed, or they both keep it open, or it's opened on the husband's side and closed on the wife's side. Point is, both spouses try to come to a mutually agreeable decision (about the marriage).
Ravenscroft
Banned
Our triad was made up of strong-willed, passionate people. Seems like we never did anything half-way. Yet digging back through the cobwebs, I honestly cannot recall ANY sort of "veto power" involved.
What I do remember is some of the times that one of us said, "No, sorry, I can't support that. Here's why..."
We could then sit down & discuss our feelings, our doubts & worries. Many times, it turned out to be a semantic glitch. Sometimes it was just a matter of timing, scheduling, logistics. And there were moments when all was well after ground rules were restated or clarified.
But I can't think of any time when someone felt the need to play a trump card, unquestionable.
What I do remember is some of the times that one of us said, "No, sorry, I can't support that. Here's why..."
We could then sit down & discuss our feelings, our doubts & worries. Many times, it turned out to be a semantic glitch. Sometimes it was just a matter of timing, scheduling, logistics. And there were moments when all was well after ground rules were restated or clarified.
But I can't think of any time when someone felt the need to play a trump card, unquestionable.
If your partner does not consent to you seeing others, it's highly unlikely that they will say "I understand that you are having sex with other people and I also know that I have not given you consent to do that whilst in a relationship with me, but I will have sex with you anyway under the assumption that you do indeed have my consent to put me at the enhanced risks that non-monogamy implies." Even if they do, that doesn't mean you cannot be the "bigger person" and say "no, I will not do this whilst I do not have your enthusiastic consent".
I do not think that the unhappy partner is alleviated of their responsibility to do the right thing, admit an incompatibility and terminate the relationship. I just think that both partners have an equal responsibility to do it. Ideally, that should mean an amicable split but in reality, when feelings are involved, it's rare both people are in a state of mind to do what is right. In those situations, the poly partner does also have a responsibility to terminate a relationship that simply isn't working. It is irrelevant how they opened their relationship, who was poly first or anything else. Both people have a responsibility here. Both of them can do the right thing, either together, opr alone. It's lazy and easy to think "well, since s/he hasn't directly stopped me and they just cry about it, I am going to go ahead anyway and then come back to them and dry their tears". That's just callous.
Forgive me if this has been already brought up, but I found a point interesting on the first few pages. I've read a lot, but not all of it, so again, sorry if this has been pointed out.
It was said that a partner has the right to revoke consent, and close up the marriage. The "bus can stop, but not all passengers can get off." Sure that sounds reasonable, but it put the partner in a bad position. You can't just drop a relationship (ok yes you can, but feelings wise, it's not something you can just switch off). Partner, not wanting to lose the other partner, says ok, ends other relationship and agrees to be monogamous. However, they too realize they can't consent to being monogamous and decide that they want to revoke their answer and say "Ok. I can't be mono, I need to be poly.." after agreeing or "trying" to be monogamous for the sake of their SO or preserving their marriage.
Why is that person then vilified here? It seems they are treated under much harsher criticism though the primary SO started the whole situation by at first consenting to an extramarital relationship. It just seems like that person gets a free pass moral wise, while person B, who's already put in a bad position because now "the passengers didn't get off the bus" and they are back to making a decision they may not be able to stick to either, like the primary did when they first opened the relationship.
Just an observation (and I feel my experience) I've made while reading threads. Someone posts they want an open relationship and they get a lot of replies/advice. If that person posts their partner is NOT ok with seeing another person after they had been given consent in the beginning, the tone and the replies change A LOT.
That's the toughest thing about Poly to me really though, consent and cheating are very muddied by emotional implications and what I believe to be double standards.
It was said that a partner has the right to revoke consent, and close up the marriage. The "bus can stop, but not all passengers can get off." Sure that sounds reasonable, but it put the partner in a bad position. You can't just drop a relationship (ok yes you can, but feelings wise, it's not something you can just switch off). Partner, not wanting to lose the other partner, says ok, ends other relationship and agrees to be monogamous. However, they too realize they can't consent to being monogamous and decide that they want to revoke their answer and say "Ok. I can't be mono, I need to be poly.." after agreeing or "trying" to be monogamous for the sake of their SO or preserving their marriage.
Why is that person then vilified here? It seems they are treated under much harsher criticism though the primary SO started the whole situation by at first consenting to an extramarital relationship. It just seems like that person gets a free pass moral wise, while person B, who's already put in a bad position because now "the passengers didn't get off the bus" and they are back to making a decision they may not be able to stick to either, like the primary did when they first opened the relationship.
Just an observation (and I feel my experience) I've made while reading threads. Someone posts they want an open relationship and they get a lot of replies/advice. If that person posts their partner is NOT ok with seeing another person after they had been given consent in the beginning, the tone and the replies change A LOT.
That's the toughest thing about Poly to me really though, consent and cheating are very muddied by emotional implications and what I believe to be double standards.
Inyourendo
New member
I personally don't think it sounds reasonable for one partner to have control of other Relationships.
Polysnow said:
That was me. What I actually said in #29 was...
The person who withdraws consent can stop participating in they things they do not want to do. No more riding the poly bus.
But that doesn't mean any of the other people in the poly network have to stop what they are doing. They can choose to stay on the bus. Sometimes that means people break up because one partner wants to stop and the other one wants to continue. Unfortunate situation, but I don't think any of them need to be vilified just because it turns out they have incompatible wants.
Galagirl
Last edited:
In the scenario where a husband wants an open marriage, and his wife wants a closed marriage, I don't want to vilify either spouse. However, because the majority of society will view monogamy as normal and polyamory as abnormal, many people will vilify the husband. Whereas on this forum, there will be those who will vilify the wife.
What the husband and wife choose to do partly depends on how strongly each of them feels about their position/s. But I think it's between them, and probably what matters the most is that they are honest with each other and with themselves. If they're going to stay together, they need to be able to do so and be happy doing so.
What the husband and wife choose to do partly depends on how strongly each of them feels about their position/s. But I think it's between them, and probably what matters the most is that they are honest with each other and with themselves. If they're going to stay together, they need to be able to do so and be happy doing so.
Inyourendo
New member
Once they decide they no longer want an open relationship they should leave. If they decide that having sex with their partner who has other partners is unsafe then they should refrain.
Which non-consenting partner is responsible for the decision to break up? the partner who doesn't consent to closing the relationship, or the partner who doesn't consent (anymore) to keeping the relationship open? I suppose both partners can (and probably will) try to stay together for awhile, to see if staying together is more painful than breaking up.
I think they are both responsible -- not to each other or to the relationship, but to themselves. Each one could put their own health and well being first. They each have the ability to get themselves off the bus.
It's nice when a break up can be mutual and respectful, but if not? One can just stop and break up with the person without that person being happy about it or agreeing it is the best solution.
I sometimes see some people trying this as part of the "bargaining" stage of grief. Trying every which way to make a kite fly that just will not fly.
If I am opposed, I am opposed. I don't want to be there any more.
It does not matter if my partner is "less opposed" than me or "more opposed" than me.
I am making the decision to stop for myself and my own well being. Not theirs.
Galagirl
Last edited:
Inyourendo
New member
I think the one wanting the change should leave. If I'm unhappy why should I be at the mercy for someone to dump me if they don't agree with my terms?
Re:
So, if a couple has an open marriage, but then the wife decides she wants to close the marriage, then she is the one wanting the change and therefore she should be the one to leave. (Just making sure I'm understanding that right.)
What about GalaGirl's idea that the husband should leave (for the sake of his own mental health) if his wife won't leave?
I take it that if it's not an amicable split, it will be up to the courts to decide how the kids and property are divided? (Oh, that's not a pleasant thought.)
And the kids get no say in any of this? Not to throw a monkey wrench into the works, but.
So, if a couple has an open marriage, but then the wife decides she wants to close the marriage, then she is the one wanting the change and therefore she should be the one to leave. (Just making sure I'm understanding that right.)
What about GalaGirl's idea that the husband should leave (for the sake of his own mental health) if his wife won't leave?
I take it that if it's not an amicable split, it will be up to the courts to decide how the kids and property are divided? (Oh, that's not a pleasant thought.)
And the kids get no say in any of this? Not to throw a monkey wrench into the works, but.
Inyourendo
New member
I dont care how other people choose to operate their relationships, i take offense to the statement that one partner is unethical if they don't stop being poly at the demand of the other. it doens't work that way, you don't get to call your partner a cheater because they have another relationship that you agreed to because you decide you don't want them being with anyone else. you don't like it then leave. it's absurd to say that the poly person has to be the dumper.
When my ex refused to move back to town because i was unhappy where we were living I didn't stick around and act like an asshole about it, i simply left. i didn't make him dump me because he was choosing our home.
it's sad that people act childish but i'd rather give everything up than to deal with someone who is being a bully. i'm not going to have a court battle over with an ex, if they feel the need to take it to that level they can just have it.
and no, kids don't get a say in whether their parents stay together or not.
When my ex refused to move back to town because i was unhappy where we were living I didn't stick around and act like an asshole about it, i simply left. i didn't make him dump me because he was choosing our home.
it's sad that people act childish but i'd rather give everything up than to deal with someone who is being a bully. i'm not going to have a court battle over with an ex, if they feel the need to take it to that level they can just have it.
and no, kids don't get a say in whether their parents stay together or not.
If the wife is foolishly throwing her own health out the window and clinging on to something that causes her pain, then yes. The husband on observing this could say "I see this causes you pain. We are breaking up. I see you don't want to, but I do not enjoy watching you hurt yourself. I am ending it with you."
This is why "you are responsible for your own emergency preparedness" is in my agreements. I think "how do we want to break up if we have to?" is part of the conversation when getting serious with someone.
Because I don't want to start figuring that out after the shit hits the fan and emotions are high. If it gets done before Opening, there's a plan. Then people can execute the plan and then linger in the healing space and not be lingering in the breaking up space.
Galagirl
Re (from Inyourendo):
Yeah if poly has already been established in the relationship ... hmmm.
Re:
Well if it's a question of ethics, I can understand that position. Something might not be good (healthy) for me but that doesn't necessarily mean doing it is a breach of ethics. Hmmm, unless how well I take care of myself is an ethical consideration? So confusing.
Okay okay, next time I won't drink the whole bottle of port. Sheesh.
Re:
Oh Jeezh, even the kids?
Yeah if poly has already been established in the relationship ... hmmm.
Re:
Well if it's a question of ethics, I can understand that position. Something might not be good (healthy) for me but that doesn't necessarily mean doing it is a breach of ethics. Hmmm, unless how well I take care of myself is an ethical consideration? So confusing.
Okay okay, next time I won't drink the whole bottle of port. Sheesh.
Re:
Oh Jeezh, even the kids?