Hierarchy, CP, and open relationships

[1234567]

I'd like to throw some thoughts out about CP and hierarchy for reaction and discussion. It's been a while since I have been here, so apologies if I hit an old discussion- if so, please feel free to sum up or direct me accordingly

I've been thinking a lot about CP and hierarchy and abusive/opressi even dynamics.

And I find CP (couple's privilege) gets experienced by me as opression


Not the kind assigned to someone-- the kind couples assign themselves.

The overt signs- veto, etc, and the covert- not giving the person a real voice in their own relationship to "protect the couple"

My thoughts are: a person feeling they would like to spend more time in one particular relationship or prioritize it more is, well, natural. They may have responsibilities to keep, etc. they may have a history and value older relationships.

But it doesn't feel okay if a person deciding someone always comes first if the two are in conflict, and especially if the conflict is "spouse is uncomfortable, and instead of putting effort into support, and equal effort into understand my new partner's needs and seeing what might be acceptable, I will just unilaterally limit new partner, even if I don't want to, and if I thought about it, or really solicited and listened to feedback, i could know this was unfair."

Institutionalizinc such patterns as hierarchy is, to me, problematic.

Such that I'm thinking I just can't date anyone who is not willing to, when I am appropriately important, put their relationship on the line, if need be, to make sure I'm treated well.

I live my standards. I stand up for fair treatment for my partners, knowing if my other partners cannot reconcile it, we're done. That's scary, but I do trust my partners to be adult about it, and mostly I'm right. (I've lost a few, too.)

I want to do a double check. Is there any good reason someone should date me and impose a hierarchy on me or anyone else that would not indicate I should not date them?

To me, it's either a sigh of:

A. Entitlement ( I/we want to date. We would have big feelinvs if we just let it happen without controls. Therefore we can impose on people so we can date and not have feelings, as us dating is mor important than being fair.)

B. A sign of suspicion. They assume a new person will be most likely harmful, not helpful, to themselves as a couple, if they were to open up to dating-- normally. Where your default is " this will end up a good thing"

C. A sign of lack of trust in their judgment or spouse's judgement to judge whether I'm good for them or not.

D. The assumption that if I am really good for their partner,'I will be threatening o them, so lack of trust in their partner's skills to add something good to their life and still prioritize appropriately.

E. When kids involved, lack of trust in their partner to prioritize the kids appropriately.

All those indicate danger- I don't want to be treated like I'm dangerous, or be in a situation with either paranoia or legitimate non-trustworthyness.

And also, if someone's not flexible when this is brought up, it indicates no one will listen to me if I see a different better way, which shows I'm not able to be valued.

If I'm right-- this is a good filter. The people left are top notch.

If I'm not- not being able to come to terms with hierarchy deems me to a very, very fine filter of people I can date: we have to get along, they have to be pily (as long as I'm dating my current partners) and they also have to be willing to go against poly common practice and trust me to be good for them (if I merit it) and not set preemptive limits in case I'm not. Which should be a non-issue-- but it's not. Most poly people I know are hierarchical.

Thoughts? What am I missing?

 

[WildColonial]

I really appreciate how you broke this down. I've been on the receiving end of couples privilege (when I was in my md-30s, my 40-something FWB had a curfew, FFS), and I'm trying to avoid it now.

 

[GalaGirl]

You are not missing anything. You don't like doing "primary-secondary." So just don't. You get to pick what you like doing and what you do not.

People who DO like it? They can do it. Just not with you.

Is there any good reason someone should date me and impose a hierarchy on me or anyone else that would not indicate I should not date them?

I find that weird phrasing. I would have said "Is there any good reason for me to be doing primary-secondary when it isn't my thing? No. Ok, then I don't do it. If someone wants me to? I say "No, thank you. I don't do that."

Keep it WAY simpler.

Most poly people I know are hierarchical.

Are these a lot of newbies? Primary secondary is the easiest to imagine for newbies. "Just like us now, but adding 1 more person! Whee!" But it has a shelf life.

http://www.kathylabriola.com/articles/models-of-open-relationships

However, a major drawback of this model is that outside relationships are not so simple or easy to predict or control. Having a sexual relationship with someone else often leads to becoming emotionally involved and even falling in love, frequently causing a crisis in the primary relationship and even divorce. Initiating a sexual relationship is opening a door to many possibilities, and often secondary relationships grow into something else which does not fit neatly into the confines of this model. Many people who become “secondary” lovers become angry at being subjugated to the couple, and demand equality or end the relationship. For this model to be successful, couples must be very convinced that their relationship is strong enough to weather these ups and downs. Conversely, some couples who start with this model decide eventually to shift to some form of the Multiple Primary Partners model to allow secondary relationships to become equal to the primary couple relationship.

Circulate. Try to meet more people.

Galagirl

 

[1234567]

I don't oppose primary/secondary if chosen. I choose light relationships all the time. But my light relationships have full rights, just less time and entwinement. And f things change- they get deeper and that is not a big shft. I oppose hierarchy- some people having less rights than others. So that's why my word choice.

The reason I'm trying to understand why to might be appropriate for others -- one of the discussion groups in the area had someone suggesting to newbies (newbies getting into poly by cheat for) by a leader that they skip the book "more than two" because hierarchy would be way easier for them as newbies.

I bristled, controlled it, and neutrally put forth the counter view that reading about non-hierarchy (more than two) was useful for learning how to treat the other person in a relationship right.

I'm an outspoken though non-aggressive advocate against opression (I articulate my truth, to be wrestled with by the other, rather than attack). I experience this as oppressive. Often, it is, as it relies on inexperience to be imposed, and newbies get hurt and hurt others.

I change the culture of a place I'm in. That's me. Respectfully, but I do it.

The culture of both this group and the online state thing that connects all the group advocated by the leadership is that dissing other people's poly is a bad idea. Discussion is tolerated, thoughtful advocacy is fine, but I'm definately skating a thin line at times, and have been told that.

BecUse of that, it is socially risky to articulate my views. Necessary, if hierarchy is truly oppressive, but risky.

It's my position that hierarchy is generally extreme harmful, and a distraction from the growth and changes needed to be made to be poly. It often falls under a definition of abuse- trying to control someone else's actons to manage your feelings, I'm going to absolutely tolerate that need for growth in others, but I will challenge, and I'm trying to figure out if my viewpoint needs to be more nuanced, or if I hold a truth here.

My sense is this question is like "is there any genuine reason to be a slave owner"- the answer is "no", but I want to ask that question of a group of thoughtful people who are experienced with poly, to see what answer I get, and see if there is anything to the "it's possible to impose hierarchy on someone morally" side (which is different from all looking at the situation with open minds and deciding, "a light relationship fits this configuration) before going all abolitionist.

I know it's not healthy for me. What I'm exploring Is it like emotional abuse- it's not really good for anyone and sharing my experience and conclusions is a positive - or do I need to nuance up? If I get a genuine "actually, it can be healthy in this situation"- I will consider softening my stance. Or advocating for healthy hierarchy.

And this is the theoretical poly section,'so I feel it appropriate.

 

[GalaGirl]

Thank you for more info. That helps.

I don't oppose primary/secondary if chosen. I choose light relationships all the time. But my light relationships have full rights, just less time and entwinement.

Sure. I agree. If chosen? People can do as they please. Including choosing to have less rights/privileges in the model they practice because that's how they like it. Maybe they also have a kink flavor going on in there... I don't care. It's their deal. They can do poly however they want.

It's not my thing, but people don't have to practice like me.

I prefer to use "nesting partner" and "non-nesting partner." My light relationships have full rights too. Just maybe I don't buy houses and have kids with them. YKWIM?

And f things change- they get deeper and that is not a big shft. I oppose hierarchy- some people having less rights than others. So that's why my word choice.

I'm not arguing your word choice. I agree with it. I'm just not sure if your focus is in the right spot kinda?

It's my position that hierarchy is generally extreme harmful, and a distraction from the growth and changes needed to be made to be poly. It often falls under a definition of abuse- trying to control someone else's actons to manage your feelings, I'm going to absolutely tolerate that need for growth in others, but I will challenge, and I'm trying to figure out if my viewpoint needs to be more nuanced, or if I hold a truth here.

I could be wrong. But I wonder if maybe you smell something hinky here. And maybe place it at the door of "primary-secondary hierarchy" rather than at the door of this particular leader and "community group hierarchy?"

Like maybe the hierarchy you are struggling with is the hierarchy of the group leader "knowing all" and imposing their will on group members?

The reason I'm trying to understand why to might be appropriate for others -- one of the discussion groups in the area had someone suggesting to newbies (newbies getting into poly by cheat for) by a leader that they skip the book "more than two" because hierarchy would be way easier for them as newbies.

Well, that might explain why lots of people in that group do primary-secondary and you feel surrounded by them. It is the path the leader pushes.

I would think it is the newbie's job to figure out what is easiest on the newbie. Not the leader.

I bristled, controlled it, and neutrally put forth the counter view that reading about non-hierarchy (more than two) was useful for learning how to treat the other person in a relationship right.

Sure. In a discussion group you can make other suggestions for how to approach poly/opening up, other book suggestions. Where is problem with that in a discussion group? Exchanging ideas is what these groups are FOR.

Is this that kind of group? Maybe you are in the wrong group. That's what I'm saying.

You have a strong opinion about primary-secondary. Which is fine to have. You can have your opinions. I'm just wondering if you are struggling to see OVER that opinion to look at this other thing over there that I'm trying to point out.

I might be wrong but I think problem is not (newbies better researching the pros/cons of primary-secondary before going there) or (you sharing your opinions for other models). I think the problem is (this leader doesn't like you. Cuz you don't hail the king/queen.)

I'm saying take a step back here. Don't get so busy looking at blue and purple when maybe you need to be looking at red. YKWIM?

Often, it is, as it relies on inexperience to be imposed, and newbies get hurt and hurt others

Yes. Newbies are at risk for getting snowed or misled if they end up in a group led by a leader with an agenda/covert agenda. Just because someone leads a community group doesn't mean they are a good leader, a strong leader, a balanced leader, a leader who is fine being challenged, a leader who welcomes opinions different than their own.

In community groups, sometimes people become leaders to gather a little group around them for ego strokes for the leader. Not to help the group members actually do anything.

The culture of both this group and the online state thing that connects all the group advocated by the leadership is that dissing other people's poly is a bad idea. Discussion is tolerated, thoughtful advocacy is fine, but I'm definately skating a thin line at times, and have been told that.

I wonder if that is "dissing other people's poly is a bad idea" like "dissing other people's poly is not kind. You do not have to agree. But please be respectful to others when debating. "

Or more like "dissing other people's poly is a bad idea" as in "Challenging the MY poly or MY leadership is a bad idea. I am the leader. Respect my authority. All hail to the king/queen!"

I don't think you are dissing people or skating anything. Leader has one opinion. You have another. You sound like you are sharing your thoughts politely and respectfully. Doesn't sound like you are being an asshole about it when you share your thoughts.

For me? If I were in this group? And it felt bristly or oppressive or annoying to be in it? I would leave. Start a different group. Change the culture that way. Give newbies a different space in which to learn.

Because of that, it is socially risky to articulate my views. Necessary, if hierarchy is truly oppressive, but risky.

That is why I started to wonder if you might be in a "one true way" group. Why should speaking your opinions be risky? This is a discussion group kinda space, right? What's wrong with discussion?

If it is only "discussion" and not discussion? Where you are welcome only if you sing the "right" song? That can feel oppressive to a person who thinks "There is no "one true way." People need to make up their own minds and form their own way of going. It doesn't have to be like mine. "

I know it's not healthy for me. What I'm exploring Is it like emotional abuse- it's not really good for anyone and sharing my experience and conclusions is a positive - or do I need to nuance up? If I get a genuine "actually, it can be healthy in this situation"- I will consider softening my stance. Or advocating for healthy hierarchy.

I think people can pick their models. People who like primary-secondary? Maybe they don't want full rights/privileges. Or maybe there's a kink flavor in there. So primary-secondary model where one person does most of the thinking is good for them because they want a brain break and don't want to be thinking to much. Or its fun for them because they are getting their kink on or whatever. So long as it is healthy for them and they aren't being hurt in the model? Rock on.

You could be advocating it like "Ok, it isn't my personal deal. I prefer other models. But I think if people want to being doing primary-secondary? It has to be because they researched the pros/cons. Like it, and all choose to be there and it is healthy being there."

But don't forget to advocate for HEALTHY GROUPS.

Making people aware that there are pros/cons to primary-secondary model is not a bad thing. Then they can make up their minds from a place of full information if that is how they want to be doing poly. But it almost sounds like the leader tries to shut you down when you share that opinion because in their opinion newbies should pick the leader's fav way.

If you are being an asshole about it? Cut the asshole part out. But if you are being basically polite and respectful at meetings and this leader is just mad because you aren't hailing the king/queen? Not giving them ego strokes? That's a whole other thing. That is COMMUNITY GROUP hierarchy you are battling.

It sounds like brainwashing. "I am the leader. I say how it goes and it goes like THIS newbies! My job is to indoctrinate people."

Not like "I am the leader. My job is to make safe space and organize speakers/resources. So the newbies can find the data they need to figure out their own path from a place of full information."

If people come to primary-secondary because that is what works for them and they like it? I think -- great! Good for you. You know what you like. It's not my thing, but whatever. Different people are allowed to like different things.

If people are railroaded there because the only group in the area is a "one true way" kinda brainwash-y group? That's not healthy.

Again... I would leave this group and form another group. Change the town's poly culture that way by giving people a different space in which to learn and find each other.

It may be the town has other poly people that are more like you in style/thinking/approach. But they stay home because they do not have a cluster point around which to gather and they think "I don't have the time to make a new group and be a community leader. Like a Meetup organizer or something. But I'm sure not going to THAT group any more."

Again, I could be totally wrong in my impression. But that's what my impression is so far. That maybe you smell something hinky here and are trying to put your finger on it. But maybe are looking in the wrong direction for the source of the hinky?

Galagirl

 

[Ravenscroft]

I don't like the "making it easier for couples" premise. There's no good reason that nonmonogamy should somehow be as "easy" as monogamy; polyamory is more difficult still.

I might be talked into agreeing that CP maybe has a limited place, very early in the first explorations of nonmonogamy... & then is gone for good. Either they learn & thus don't actually need it, or they don't learn & should reconsider their hobbies. But having that "safety net" around for an extended period is definitely unfair to other intimates who might find themselves abandoned at any moment because the spouse had a whim.

 

[1234567]

Ravenscroft- that.

Short term safety net is a possible legitimate reason. In the "we're exploring poly; we're not claiming to be poly yet" stage. And I could have patience with that. Maybe even do a guest star/non- relational thing. But like gala girl said, it has an expiration.

 

[1234567]

Galagirl, you're definately onto me detecting something hinky, though I do think the group is generally pretty healthy, and I portrayed it without some of the mitigating details, and dissent is not that big a deal at all.

I agree with most of what you say, but think- and this is an idea that freely liars around our group-- that perhaps, we don't as humans have as much choice as we think from the outside. We may not know what a non-hierarchical pattern looks like or is even an option as a newbie. We may trade off freedom for love.

I see space for empowerment by choice-- and so do you, I can tell.

You are invaluable here in this forum that way- you are one of the main reasons I ask tough questions here, and have been for years- you break things down well, and the insight always empowers.

I think in another way, that is what I'm aiming to do - make non-hierarchy an available and doable choice, rather than hierarchy the default to hide problems that I've seen it be used at in my own experience.

Like kink, absolutely someone can choose to give up a freedom. But like misogyny versus kink, knowledge that the freedom is your before you give it away, and the idea of consent- that it is really your choice- is important.

And I will give thought to that leadership thing. I tend to do better as the next step down, and there are logistical reasons I can't lead now, but I am considering how I can once those are lifted.

 

[1234567]

I think the hinkiness I detect is actually a standard tolerance thing- the dilemma of "does wanting to support mean tolerating all viewpoints, and does tolerating all viewpoints equal not questioning if a pattern or belief is healthy as a society?" And therefore- are you destroying support by questioning healthiness?

Like you pointed out, yes,you can, if you are an asshole.

But I think the freedom to question -
As long as you LISTEN, is part of good community health.

Strong dissent positions can make people uncomfortable- even if it's just because they know it WILL make other people uncomfortable (who need to be). You Donne need to be press ice to be uncomfortable seeing if confronted.

I think they are necessary. You never get anywhere as a society without strong dissenters.

I have that normal human reluctance to make that me, though. Here, that is authentically me, and so I think I need to be that dissenter even when keeping on my listening ears.

 

[GalaGirl]

I think the hinkiness I detect is actually a standard tolerance thing- the dilemma of "does wanting to support mean tolerating all viewpoints, and does tolerating all viewpoints equal not questioning if a pattern or belief is healthy as a society?" And therefore- are you destroying support by questioning healthiness?

I would say questioning if something is healthy or not is necessary. Sometimes that IS how you show support.

Say my kid wants to pierce her nose. She wants to shove a safety pin up in there. And I question that way of going. That IS how I'm trying to show my support.

I want her to get to where she wants to be. But in a healthy way. Maybe we go get it pierced professionally. Or if she's hell bent on doing it at home, well maybe I know some friends who do this work professionally who could be willing to do a house call. If it is the look of "safety pin" we can shop for something in sterling silver or gold or whatever with that kind of look.

But just rooting around in my kinda gunky sewing basket and then just shoving some old quilting pin up her nose on impulse... not such a hot idea.

If her friend is standing there going "just shove it! I'll do it with you!" I am not going to tolerate that. I do not HAVE to support all viewpoints.

Friend is not the one who will comfort her and then deal with doctor visit and bills if it gets infected. I will say "No, I do not support just shoving it up your nose, kid. Not good hygiene like you are planning. And friend? No. I think your visit here today is done. You are pressuring my kid into things. That's not being a good friend. If you want to go jam things up your nose go do it at your house where YOUR mom can first aid you. Not me. Bye. You are welcome to come visit again if you can handle the rules here, but today is just done. Go home."

Creating safe, supportive space in community groups is not about "support all viewpoints." People don't HAVE to all agree or all think the same. Creating safe, supportive space in community groups is about not letting one guy monopolize the floor the whole hour, taking turns speaking without cross talk, sticking to the planned meeting agenda, starting and stopping on time, leaving the space as neat or better than you found it... just lots of stuff. And sometimes it includes asking someone to tone it down, wrap up their thoughts, or simply go home.

Or the membership challenging the leader. I do lead community groups. One of mine? Has bylaws with the section for removal of an officer. I go bananas? People can kick me out of the group I helped found. Because it is not MY group. It is a community group. I *should* be challenged in my leadership if it is going into unhealthy places.

I think you could just go on being you in your group if you are going to stay there. Dissent, express. Just be polite. And be ok with other people feeling uncomfortable/not wanting to grow.

If you aren't being asshole about it?

Like "Galagirl, you suck! I would never agree to that! That's dumb way to do poly!"​

And you are being calm, and polite about it like...

"Primary-secondary? Here's the pros and cons I see. So overall I think con. Not my way to do poly. I prefer this model. Here's pros and cons. More pros to me there. So I go that way. I think newbies could figure out their way of going. Pick a path, or perhaps bits from many paths to cobble something together that is more suitable to their group of people. Whatever model it ultimately is... it needs to be HEALTHY for the participants."​

You aren't badgering people or anything. Just stating what you think.

If someone is suggesting something unhealthy? I'm not going to support it and I will say so. "I do not support that. It is not healthy sounding to me."

Galagirl

 

[kdt26417]

Hi 1234567,

In BDSM there are Master/slave relationships, so technically couple privilege is okay if everyone (including the secondary) agrees to it. But you don't have to agree to it, and you shouldn't agree to it if you feel strongly against it. And many newbies agree to it without realizing what they're getting into. That's a problem.

See Franklin Veaux's Secondaries' Bill of Rights.

Just some thoughts.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.

 

[vinsanity0]

I agree that most couples probably start out slow with some CP. I agree that, in itself, is not a bad thing as long as they realize it fairly quickly. I have seen a couple problems arise out of this.

1. The couple stays in CP mode in a very hierarchical configuration. They have lots of shallow relationships. Anything that evolves into something more serious will cause a problem with the other partner, who feels as though they will lose their privilege. Their other partners are basically chewed up and spit out.

2.One partner gets out of CP mode too quickly, leaving the partner behind to worry about the relationship.

I think of primary/secondary a little differently than some. That is why I like the term "nesting partner". I had a nesting partner. Our agreement was that we would live together and maintain a house together. That was it. No rules about falling in love with others, spending too much time with others, no vetoes, nothing like that. However, there were bills to pay so those responsibilities would come first, same as a solo person maintaining their house. Also, no jumping ship to go live with someone else. I did briefly consider another live-in arrangement with someone else, but she wasn't with the program. She wanted CP and I couldn't give it to her. I still had another house to maintain.

Now that I am solo, I would not have a problem with a married partner who presented the same sort of thing to me. The problem would come if she kept breaking dates to appease her husband somehow. I would see that as they are not ready to do poly and I would most likely move on.

Another thing that can appear as CP is scheduling. The more partners you have, the less time for scheduling. Sprite and I ran into that problem as she tried to fit me in to a very busy schedule with two other partners. It wasn't working for me.

At this point in time I don't see myself having another nesting partner so hopefully I won't be the cause of any of this sort of problem. And if I ever get the sense that someone else is controlling a relationship I will bail (BDSM stuff aside).

 

[Ravenscroft]

I do feel that looking at couplism as kink makes sense. But, like BDSM, that means that there's a need for negotiation, & to have rights & responsibilities laid out clearly.

For instance, unicorn hunters. Nothing wrong with it, really. But most "couples looking" are so caught up in the Romance of equality that they don't see where they're actually doing many things to prevent such equality from forming.

If CP is in play, fine... so long as they are explicit about this with all of their dating candidates, from the very beginning. Like veto: saying "look, if my hubby thinks it's getting too emotionally intense with you, I've given him the right to pull the plug. At that point, you'll never hear from me again. Are you okay with that?"

Lacking that sort of upfront honesty, I'd have to call BS on CP as having anything to do with polyamory.

 

[vinsanity0]

I wouldn't view CP with that sort of veto power as having anything to do with polyamory at all. That's more like an open marriage.

 

[1234567]

I totally agree with you- definitely my position/ nice to hear it so well articulated! (To galagirl'a thing)

 

[Ravenscroft]

I wouldn't view CP with that sort of veto power as having anything to do with polyamory at all.

Oh, I totally agree... but remember how often this site sees people who've taken up the popular notion that anything outside monogamy is "polyamory." They wash up here, expecting people to tell them how to cope with their "negative feelings" about their loved ones rather than to hear that it's NOT polyamory at root & that they've been actively misled.

 

[Rockit49]

Lol

Oh, I totally agree... but remember how often this site sees people who've taken up the popular notion that anything outside monogamy is "polyamory." They wash up here, expecting people to tell them how to cope with their "negative feelings" about their loved ones rather than to hear that it's NOT polyamory at root & that they've been actively misled.

No kidding