SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
@GalaGirl posted this article in another thread. Just wanted to go through it and point out why this type of Poly 101 is becoming obsolete.
To me, this is the first clue that actually, maybe this couples' privilege is just the inevitable result of starting a relationship with someone who already has a longer standing commitment. Someone who lacks the availability of a single, monogamous person.
Everyone meets a new person and gives them a list of things that are okay and available, or are not okay. Sure, if both parties of the couple are having this conversation with you, that's a bad sign. But if the person you're trying to date is telling you what's on and what's off, even if they make it known that previous romantic commitments are what limits their availability, that's just sensible relationship talk.
It's weird how people think polyamorous people have to be open to negotiation on everything with a new partner, or they're being selfish. It's really unhealthy.
This is something common in all relationships. I tell you my needs and standards and boundaries, you tell me if they work for you. If it doesn't work, we don't move forward or stop where we are.
There's a part of the article titled "the difference between couples' privilege and hierarchy". This quote is from there:
I think that's where a lot of people get confused. What they experience in relationships is due to the fact people are more likely to prioritise known entities (like a healthy, fulfilling long standing relationship) over unknown entities (like a new partner). I'm not sure it's a good idea to partner with someone who is in a long standing relationship which they don't prioritise over newer ones.
So now even basic safer sex agreements are seen as part of this unfair prioritising of a longer term relationship. I can only see this negatively impacting on women. Men will be telling their wives they cannot expect them to use condoms with their latest beau, because it's unfair to her and oppresses her autonomy in negotiating barrier free sex with whoever she wants.
I agree with this bit. They were saying: it's up to you how you spend your time, if you want one partner to have more time than others, for instance. But someone being able to control your time with others is a problem. So your wife shouldn't be able to veto contact with your girlfriend.
What does this even mean? If I don't want kids, because I already have kids with a nesting partner, how do I make room for my other partners and their needs? Do they just mean not monopolising the childless person so they can also seek a co-parent? Do they mean acknowledge that they would have wanted kids with you if you didn't have them already? I mean, what can you do?
Overall, I think the concept of couples' privilege has become moot because "The Poly Crowd" has twisted it so much in favour of single women trying to have lifelong-entangled relationships with men who are already partnered. Maybe because there are so few good cis-heterosexual men, in the eyes of today's woman, they feel they have to carve out ways that several women can get exactly the same things from one "good" man, even at the detriment of each other.
I say this because, when I read these expectations, I often imagine a man putting these demands on me. I can tell you now, I'd kick him to the curb for suggesting that he's owed something from me, or that my current relationships are unfair to him. There's no way I'd put up with that.
To me, this is the first clue that actually, maybe this couples' privilege is just the inevitable result of starting a relationship with someone who already has a longer standing commitment. Someone who lacks the availability of a single, monogamous person.
Everyone meets a new person and gives them a list of things that are okay and available, or are not okay. Sure, if both parties of the couple are having this conversation with you, that's a bad sign. But if the person you're trying to date is telling you what's on and what's off, even if they make it known that previous romantic commitments are what limits their availability, that's just sensible relationship talk.
It's weird how people think polyamorous people have to be open to negotiation on everything with a new partner, or they're being selfish. It's really unhealthy.
This is something common in all relationships. I tell you my needs and standards and boundaries, you tell me if they work for you. If it doesn't work, we don't move forward or stop where we are.
There's a part of the article titled "the difference between couples' privilege and hierarchy". This quote is from there:
I think that's where a lot of people get confused. What they experience in relationships is due to the fact people are more likely to prioritise known entities (like a healthy, fulfilling long standing relationship) over unknown entities (like a new partner). I'm not sure it's a good idea to partner with someone who is in a long standing relationship which they don't prioritise over newer ones.
So now even basic safer sex agreements are seen as part of this unfair prioritising of a longer term relationship. I can only see this negatively impacting on women. Men will be telling their wives they cannot expect them to use condoms with their latest beau, because it's unfair to her and oppresses her autonomy in negotiating barrier free sex with whoever she wants.
I don't think this fact (that your choice to prioritise time with one partner could result in this) warrants change. Not unless you want to have additional relationships more than you want your current relationships to continue. Just because I'm scarcely available to potential other partners, it doesn't mean I'm doing things wrong. I just need to find people who are gratified by what I can offer.
I agree with this bit. They were saying: it's up to you how you spend your time, if you want one partner to have more time than others, for instance. But someone being able to control your time with others is a problem. So your wife shouldn't be able to veto contact with your girlfriend.
What does this even mean? If I don't want kids, because I already have kids with a nesting partner, how do I make room for my other partners and their needs? Do they just mean not monopolising the childless person so they can also seek a co-parent? Do they mean acknowledge that they would have wanted kids with you if you didn't have them already? I mean, what can you do?
Overall, I think the concept of couples' privilege has become moot because "The Poly Crowd" has twisted it so much in favour of single women trying to have lifelong-entangled relationships with men who are already partnered. Maybe because there are so few good cis-heterosexual men, in the eyes of today's woman, they feel they have to carve out ways that several women can get exactly the same things from one "good" man, even at the detriment of each other.
I say this because, when I read these expectations, I often imagine a man putting these demands on me. I can tell you now, I'd kick him to the curb for suggesting that he's owed something from me, or that my current relationships are unfair to him. There's no way I'd put up with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
