Emotional Affairs (so-called)

Well, it all pretty much comes down to this (from the blog post.)
"Nothing is cheating unless you and your partner agree that it’s cheating."
 
FallenAngelina said:
Well, it all pretty much comes down to this (from the blog post.)
"Nothing is cheating unless you and your partner agree that it’s cheating."
Click to expand...

As sensible as those words seem to be to most of us in here, it's actually quite a frightening (and often demonized) point of view to a huge segment of the general population. A very many people seem to believe that there are universal rules and regulations guiding how people "aught to" or "should" organize and pattern their relationships.

I recently got told off once again for being in a "dysfunctional relationship" which "obviously" needs a lot of help ... because (presumably, to my accusor) I "sexualize" my "unmet needs" by being in an open/polyamorous relationship. He also describe me as "unavailable," meaning partnered.

He can't imagine people in a happy and healthy relationship being open to more than one loving ("romantic") relationship. So he thinks those who are open in this way are probably miserable.

Basic pathologization of difference. And this from a bi guy, who ought to know better.
 
KC43 said:
What does his being bi have to do with whether he "should know better"?
Click to expand...

Fistly, let me use another word other than "should". That was a lazy word to use, because throwing it around is so familiar to most of us. But the less lazy way -- and the one with less judgement -- may be to use the word could instead. "He could know better." And we could get even more subtle and less lazy if we go deep into the heart about it. But I'll let "could" stand for now.

What he could know better about was made clear enough, perhaps, in what I had said. I was speaking about "pathologization of difference". People in our (and perhaps all, or most) cultures tend to either criminalize, demonize or pathologize certain kinds of differences. Not so much eye or hair color, or height, or what have you -- because most of us know we don't choose these things, so it's just silly to pathologize or etc. with them.

Non-hetero folks (those who love and sex with folks of the same sex at least sometimes) are famous and infamous for being pathologized, criminalized... demonized, and so they COULD know better about doing those things with other people who are "different," such as those who like to have more than one love/r in their life.

The contextualization of my words is about what the dominant society expects to treat as acceptable and "normal" -- and expected. It expects and almost wants to (or has for a long time) heterosexuality: i.e., heteronormativity. To be bi is to be an outsider, then, to "normal". One might think that outsiders could empathize with other kinds of outsiders, give them some benefit of the doubt about the virtues of their ways. Right?

Does this make sense to you?
 
Your explanation makes sense to me. Your logic does not. Being an outsider doesn't make one any more likely to be compassionate or understanding of other outsiders than being a not-outsider does. Someone who's bi knows how it feels to be excluded or discriminated against because they're bi, but that doesn't preclude them from excluding or discriminating against someone who's poly.

Whether one person is an "outsider" has absolutely zero bearing on how they treat others, and I've known a number of "outsiders" who are actually *more* likely to exclude others, because it makes them feel better about themselves or something.

It would be very, very nice if your logic were actually the way things work, but it isn't, unfortunately. It *could* be, but that would require a massive sea change in human nature in general.
 
KC43 said:
Whether one person is an "outsider" has absolutely zero bearing on how they treat others, and I've known a number of "outsiders" who are actually *more* likely to exclude others, because it makes them feel better about themselves or something.

It would be very, very nice if your logic were actually the way things work, but it isn't, unfortunately. It *could* be, but that would require a massive sea change in human nature in general.
Click to expand...

Most of the excluded outsiders I've known in my life have been empathetically sensitized to other outsiders (different from them) by that experience. But you're right that it is not an automatic occurrence, for sure! Most is not all. Most can be 50% +1

I think we're both right in this case. The truth combines both of our perspectives, I think.
 
I think that an emotional affair is a gray area.

As for outsiders being understanding of other outsiders, it occurs to me that it can work the opposite way: An outsider can be inclined to demonize/pathologize other outsiders in (subconscious) hopes of being accepted by mainstream society. ("Well, he's gay, but at least he detests poly people, so I guess he's not too bad.")

What do you think, am I onto something there?
 
kdt26417 said:
What do you think, am I onto something there?
Click to expand...

I do think that this happens as well. I think that there is a whole mix of personal reactions and cultural pressures at work and it depends on an individual persons perspective as well as conscious and unconscious biases and motivations.
 
Kevin, yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

I was badly bullied throughout school. Some of my bullies were the "popular" kids, but the ones who treated me the worst were the ones who were *also* bullied by the popular kids. As if treating me like shit would show the popular kids "hey, I'm one of you, so let's all gang up on KC instead."

Personally, I try to be more the way River is describing. Hubby has said to me more than once that with all the abuse and bullying I've dealt with, he can't understand why I'm not the most abusive, cruel bitch in the universe. He's met a lot of people who were abused or bullied and turned around to inflict that treatment on others, either because they were hurting and so wanted other people to hurt as well, or because they wanted to be accepted.

My response the times he's said that is "Why would I be like that? I know how it feels to be on the receiving end. It feels like shit. Why would I want anyone else to feel that way?"

But like Hubby, I've known a lot of people who do choose to inflict pain on others because it's been inflicted on them. My kids' uncle, who was beaten with a belt growing up and so did the same to his kids because "it happened to me and I grew up okay." (He's an alcoholic whose wife chronically cheats on him, and whose 20-year-old barely speaks to him anymore.) My kids' father, who grew up in the same household and, while he wasn't physically abusive to our kids, because I told him I would have him arrested if he were, was extremely emotionally and verbally abusive to me and Alt. "Betty," the woman Hubby hooked up with years ago, who was physically and emotionally abused growing up and was kicked out of her home at age 18--with a newborn--and treated her own kids that way to the extent that both kids, now adults, are drug addicts (though one is recovering). She's also attempted to systematically gaslight and emotionally destroy people she doesn't like or who she believes have wronged her--me included, and don't even get me started on what she did to Best Friend.

Unfortunately, in human life, there seems to be a pecking order. Those at the top peck at those on the next rung, who peck at those on the rung below them, and so on. It's very rare even for those who are on the same rung to try to support each other, because so many are trying to peck their way to the top.
 
River said:
Non-hetero folks (those who love and sex with folks of the same sex at least sometimes) are famous and infamous for being pathologized, criminalized... demonized, and so they COULD know better about doing those things with other people who are "different," such as those who like to have more than one love/r in their life.
Click to expand...

How many lesbians wouldn't touch a bisexual woman with a ten foot pole? Add "poly" to that and you've got 99% (at best.)
 
River said:
A very many people seem to believe that there are universal rules and regulations guiding how people "aught to" or "should" organize and pattern their relationships.
Click to expand...

The "who demonizes who" debate aside, all that matters is what you internalize. The less you concern yourself with all manner of what "very many people seem to believe," the less this nebulous force is a factor in your everyday experience. It is possible to live joyfully and productively without many thoughts at all about how you're perceived by others.
 
FallenAngelina said:
Well, it all pretty much comes down to this (from the blog post.)
"Nothing is cheating unless you and your partner agree that it’s cheating."
Click to expand...

Yup. Your relationships, your rules.

None of our relatives poly. Whenever we are invited in any family gathering we go together as one family. Sometime some of our relatives ask questions here and there. I always answer "We have different view things differently. It works for us and we are a happy family". :)
 
FallenAngelina said:
The "who demonizes who" debate aside, all that matters is what you internalize. The less you concern yourself with all manner of what "very many people seem to believe," the less this nebulous force is a factor in your everyday experience. It is possible to live joyfully and productively without many thoughts at all about how you're perceived by others.
Click to expand...

Sure. I suppose. But if one is trying to meet compatible folks for exploring relationship possiblities, won't one be bumping into all kinds of folks, some of whom will be highly judgemental and dismissive of one's unconventional approach to things? I guess I don't need to feel hurt or offended by it. That would be true. But avoid such judgement altogether? Maybe if I live like a hermit in a cave I could.

[edit: I typoed "cafe" where I meant to say cave. Fixed it!] <---- funny typo!
 
Last edited:
I've been seeing the word "gaslighting" in here, and didn't know what it meant. So I looked it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Aha! Now I have a word for how one of my ex-friends treated me! It was a hard lessen!
 
FallenAngelina said:
How many lesbians wouldn't touch a bisexual woman with a ten foot pole? Add "poly" to that and you've got 99% (at best.)
Click to expand...

I think you do have to be a bit careful here by what you consider 'demonisation/pathologisation' behaviour here. Someone ruling you out as a sexual partner, even a lot of someones who all fit a particular demographic, doesn't mean they are demonising you or projecting negativity at you. It can simply be a case of knowing who you find attractive, and "that ain't it". I try to draw the line in my own dealings with people between those who say "poly isn't for me - I could never date you because you are x, y or z" versus those who go out of their way to maintain that "being x, y or z is wrong".

(And for the record, I do know a number of lesbians who have dated bi poly women. Not many, but a few. My feeling is that there are relatively few lesbians open to non-monogamy because it's not a trait that women are supposed to have. The reason we see relatively more bisexual women who are into it is possibly because many of those are in a relationship with men who are also open to non-monogamy, and so they feel supported in that endeavour. That might just mean that non-monogamy is less attractive if you're a single female, so not actually a lesbian thing at all.)
 
Re (from KC43):
"He's met a lot of people who were abused or bullied and turned around to inflict that treatment on others, either because they were hurting and so wanted other people to hurt as well, or because they wanted to be accepted."
Click to expand...

Right, wanting others to be hurt too, that's another factor at times.

And if someone beats you up and you want to beat someone up so you can feel better, the safe bet is to beat up someone who's lower on the totem pole. That way the people higher on the totem pole will approve, and won't beat you up (again) in retaliation.
 
River said:
... avoid such judgement altogether? Maybe if I live like a hermit in a cafe I could.
Click to expand...

It's possible to be very socially active and not worry about social judgement all that much. In fact, I'd say that the only way to truly enjoy socializing is to do whatever you need to do to release concern over your image (AKA worrying about judgement.) And the more you do, paradoxically, the more attractive you become.
 
FallenAngelina said:
It's possible to be very socially active and not worry about social judgement all that much. In fact, I'd say that the only way to truly enjoy socializing is to do whatever you need to do to release concern over your image (AKA worrying about judgement.) And the more you do, paradoxically, the more attractive you become.
Click to expand...

I've come a very long distance down that trail over the last couple of years. I used to have fairly severe social anxiety, and now I have hardly any at all. In fact, I now lead group processes and do some public speaking (in smallish groups of up to twenty people). That would have been nearly unthinkable for me a couple of years ago. And if I keep doing the practices I'm doing which set me free to this extent, I'm sure I'll make further such strides over time.
 
That's great to hear, River. Those of us who have known terrible social anxiety appreciate all the more what it means to live with less and less of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top