Marriage as an excuse
- Thread starter greenhat
- Start date
Ravenscroft
Banned
As with so much hot-button stuff in relationships -- unicorn hunting, DADT, primacy, couplefront -- then so long as these rules are spelled out explicitly & everyone's aware, I can't see reason to fault them as inherently wrong or bad. (I feel it adds unnecessary complication, but anyone is free to accept that.)
However, I got stuck in a logic puzzle:
Let me set out a case...
- human beings are fallible, if not outright flawed
- no relationship can be perfect, because they're all full of human beings
- your relationship with your husband is "good," but imperfect
- "Open honest communication ... good relationship."
- you believe you also have "good relationships" with your other partners
- THEREFORE, you always speak freely about your husband (especially your occasional tiffs & misunderstandings) with all your other partners
Ravenscroft
Banned
Oh, so much of that paragraph makes me feel bad.
There can be no widespread "culture of transparency" so long as there are people who are petty, jealous, self-serving, or mean-spirited.
For instance, there are trolls who will hound you to death -- literally -- merely because you happened to post something they disagree with. They will call you at all hours, threaten to torture your children to death, hack your workplace... because it amuses them. They certainly wouldn't want transparency going both ways (they'd soon enough be dead or in prison).
In the past twenty years, I have watched people give away their freedoms, crumb by crumb, in exchange for a moment's amusement or a minuscule time-savings they didn't need or to have more "friends" on some website. It's the Boiled Frog metaphor, played out.
Anything FREE on the Internet should be scrutinized carefully... which is exactly what very few takers will ever do. Your "free" browser is tracking your website usage, even if it tells you that you've turned off or blocked all that stuff -- the ware owners make cash (or at least barter favors) based on what you do, & when. (In recent years, Firefox has gone from being one of the cleanest to as intrusive as IE.) Whenever you visit a site like Amazon or eBay, page loading repeatedly bogs down because it's more important to rifle through your hard drive to see what you've been up to, who you talked to, what you looked at, when & where you were at the time, etc.
And people merely sigh, shrug, & say "that's just the way it is" like anyone else in an abusive relationship.
(One reason that I like Polyamory.com is the site seems to be entirely tracker-free.)
Now, people (a few) are waking up (slowly) to how much they've lost. Identity theft is a child's game; avoiding it requires effort, research, time consumption, upfront cost, & insurance. Automatic payments are soooo helpful... right up until you forget to update some account with the new debit card info, & maybe discover the hard way that your insurance has lapsed & getting it back means higher premiums & other costs. (I'm thinking about shutting some of those down & going back to sending checks.)
Back to "transparency". There are all sorts of good people on this site; tropes like "radical honesty" are often proclaimed. Yet on a daily basis we see where people are quite imperfect at being completely upfront & honest even with the one or two closest to them. A small minority have dared to publicly link their legal name AND the word "polyamorous." Overall, I'm seeing generalized opacity & widespread chronic low-level anxiety at any thought of being "outed" from the Poly Closet.
It's fine to expect others to be "transparent," but likely better to first practice it.
Last edited:
SchrodingersCat
Active member
So let me ask you: before you share your private thoughts with people, do you ask their permission? Otherwise, what right do you have to burden people with your problems and then forbid them to get help working through their own response with someone who loves and supports them? Do you offer to pay their therapy bills so they can confidentially discuss their own reaction and feelings about your private thing?
e.g. Suppose my girlfriend shares with me that she's no longer interested in sex, and I'm the kind of person who requires sex in my relationships. Now I'm facing a huge decision -- whether to break up with her -- and normally I would talk to my husband about it, because he would have some good perspective and would help me sort through my jumbled thoughts. But under your rules, I'm not allowed to talk to my husband because her sexuality is private. So now because you've dictated that privacy is more important than anything, I have to struggle with this on my own? That's bullshit. Meanwhile, I'm getting all closed up and pensive because I'm contemplating the end of a relationship, and my husband sees me getting distant and distracted but isn't allowed to know why?
You seem to be confusing the word "trust" with "confide."
Trust isn't about whether you can expect someone to do what you want. It's about whether you can expect them to be predictable. I'm open and upfront about the fact that I tell my husband everything. So, you can trust me 100%. You can trust that if you tell me something, then I may share it with my husband if it affects me and I need to talk to someone about it. You can trust that I don't do secrets. You can trust that I'm an open book.
My cousin's husband is a gambler. My cousin trusts him 100%. She trusts that if he has access to a credit card, he'll run it up with gambling debt. She trusts that if he has access to the household account, he'll empty it out. Trust isn't about expecting people to obey you, it's about expecting them to do what they've previously demonstrated they have a tendency to do.
Last edited:
Emm
Stealth Mod
It is your default assumption that everything you encounter during your day is up for discussion with your other half. It's my default assumption that if I want to discuss a thing another person might not want publicly known that I'll seek their consent first.
So let me ask you: before you share people's private thoughts with others, do you ask their permission?
SchrodingersCat
Active member
There's no logical contradiction. The conclusion may contradict your apparent assumption that my marriage has some kind of "privacy privilege," but I made no such claim.
What I said was that I share things with him that affect me and my ability to be in a relationship with him, things that I'm going to "bring home" and are going to trouble me when I'm with him. Similarly, if something in my marriage is troubling me, I'm going to bring it with me when I go on a date, and yes: I'm going to discuss it with my partners if I think they'll be able to help me sort through it, or even if I just need to unburden myself and have a shoulder to cry on.
Oh, so much of that paragraph makes me feel bad.
I feel bad about many parts of the modern world. If only that had any bearing on reality!
My point is that it doesn't matter whether we like it or not -- information transparency is here and it's only going to get worse. Your troll example demonstrates this nicely. It also demonstrates the problem of the illusion of privacy -- namely that the troll can find everything about you but you can't return the favor, simply because your belief that the troll has privacy prevents you from digging up their dirt.
My point is that societal norms and the legal system need to be updated to protect people in light of the fact that privacy no longer truly exists, and that all our data is all over the internet already.
In other words, we can put our heads in the sand and pretend that the world is other than it is, just so we can feel a false sense of security. Or we can be pragmatists and adjust our societal norms and legal rules in order to protect our safety in light of the reality of data transparency.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
How do you know what someone might and might not want publicly known? What if something is no big deal to you but a really big deal to someone else? So then, do you just never tell anyone anything about anyone, in case you get it wrong about whether that was supposed to be private?
Because of how I'm wired, it doesn't even occur to me that anyone would tell me something they didn't want publicly known without saying "this is just between you and me." Like I said, I'm an open book. I've told countless people all kinds of things about myself that many people would consider private. So if I'm going to use my own privacy standards as a benchmark (and what else can anyone use?) then I'd still end up sharing all kinds of "private" information simply because I don't recognize it as private.
Insofar as people ever share their personal thoughts with me, I don't share those with others at all. Those aren't my experiences to share. What I do share with my husband is my own experiences, because those are mine to share. If that experience happens to involve another person, it's still my experience. If that experience left me with feelings or concerns that I'm not comfortable discussing with the person, then I have the right to discuss my feelings and concerns with whomever I choose. They're my feelings and my concerns -- the fact that you may have triggered them does not make them yours nor give you authority over them.
Last edited:
SchrodingersCat
Active member
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm trying to ask you questions for clarification, and you're dodging them. I asked: how do you know what someone might and might not want shared? What do you do to make sure you never guess wrong?
It probably seems like I'm trying to be pedantic and difficult, but I genuinely don't know the answer to questions like this, because my brain doesn't work that way. I don't "get" privacy. It just doesn't make sense to me. I've just seen far too many people disguise secrecy as privacy and use it as an excuse to hurt people and keep things from them that they really do have the right to know.
Ravenscroft
Banned
I dig the classics:
SchrodingersCat
Active member
That's a funny example because my honest answer is "not always." Case in point: this weekend I was at a music festival where the weather was incredibly hot and the portapoties were mini-ovens. So I totally propped the door open to let some breeze in, not giving a fuck who saw, because it was just way too damn hot to care.
Aside from habit, the main reason I close it is out of respect for others, because I acknowledge our society's taboo against public displays of waste elimination. But I honestly don't give a shit if people see me taking one. There's also a hygienic aspect, so that the aerosolised piss and shit from the flushing are somewhat contained to the stall.
I've been to plenty of hippy festivals where I had no qualms about pulling my pants down and peeing on a bush in full display of whoever was around.
vinsanity0
Active member
If I'm having a problem with a partner I might share that with another partner if I am looking for a sounding board or some comfort. I would expect them to not share those details with their partners, probably.
If a partner shares a problem with me I wouldn't share those details.
My question is at what point do you draw the line as to what should be private? I mean, if I tell Sprite that Elle and I went to a certain restaurant, that could be considered violating Elle's privacy.
If a partner shares a problem with me I wouldn't share those details.
My question is at what point do you draw the line as to what should be private? I mean, if I tell Sprite that Elle and I went to a certain restaurant, that could be considered violating Elle's privacy.
Ravenscroft
Banned
For me, basically, relating something that's a matter that could be verified by a random observer isn't generally a violation of privacy.
As for your example, on your part, it's not idle gossip: you were there & have a right to say so. (The only risk I can see is if for some reason it would irritate Sprite that you chose that particular restaurant, but that's likely not aprivacy thing. And of course some people want to know nothing about interactions with another lover, however public.)
The Brandeis/Warren paper is framed in terms of print media, but it's interpretable. Specifically,
As for your example, on your part, it's not idle gossip: you were there & have a right to say so. (The only risk I can see is if for some reason it would irritate Sprite that you chose that particular restaurant, but that's likely not aprivacy thing. And of course some people want to know nothing about interactions with another lover, however public.)
The Brandeis/Warren paper is framed in terms of print media, but it's interpretable. Specifically,
- The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest. ... the matters of which the publication should be repressed may be described as those which concern the private life, habits, acts, and relations of an individual....
- The right to privacy ceases upon the publication of the facts by the individual, or with his consent.
- The truth of the matter published does not afford a defense.
- The absence of malice in the publisher does not afford a defense.
opalescent
Active member
What people share in conversation with others (especially about or from another person) is one of those things that 'everyone' thinks should be simple and easy for everyone to do and understand.
It's not. Its actually really complex. It can seem very simple from one's own perspective. 'I tell everyone everything, including what others tell me. Or I only talk about a conversation I had with a partner with someone else if I have their explicit permission. I tell my spouse everything cause that's what spouses do.'
And on and on.
Like so much else, this is where unconscious beliefs about how things 'are', can really screw things up. It's really important to ask partners (or anyone else really) how they want their information handled. It's not ok to assume everyone is on the same page. Why? Because everyone is different and has different comfort levels.
I fall more on the 'don't blab to all and sundry' side of things. For example, I tell partners that they not tell others intimate details of how we have sex. That's an area of privacy for me. I don't mind at all if they say 'so and so and I had sex' and I can discuss sexual health until the cows come home. But I don't want my sexual experiences used as some sort of creepy sexual aide. I get that many people find that hot and like the voyeurism/exhibitionism of it. But it's a limit for me. If they can't keep their mouth shut, or god forbid, are 'required' to report back, it's a no fucking zone.
I talk to partners about what I can tolerate being shared, what I want shared and what I don't. Things evolve and change, of course, and I'm always open to discussing it more. But I am firmly in the 'make no assumption and ask' camp. The time to assume implied consent is at work is *after* the privacy vs. sharing discussion, not before.
There are all kinds of social assumptions that can be quite the time bomb when people are sorting out comfort levels of information sharing. The biggest and most common, by far, one is one here in this thread - that people who are married or otherwise coupled up, will automatically share everything others tell them with their spouse. It is so accepted that it seems 'natural'. It's not. It's a social convention that helps impose hierarchy of coupled people over people who are not in a couple, or not in *that* couple. That relationship is more valued than a friendship, or another romantic relationship, so of course, they should know everything someone shares with their spouse. It is an insidious type of couple privilege. (Google solo poly and you will find the Solo Poly blog/website which has interesting discussions about this and other aspects of couple privilege, relationship escalators and much more. There is also a Solo Poly FB group, which is (appropriately enough) private.)
There isn't anything wrong with sharing everything with your spouse - or with the world -, *if* the people whose information you are sharing are ok with that *or* they understand that about you and adjust accordingly. One of my dear friends can't keep anything to herself. She just can't. So I don't tell her anything I would mind others hearing.
It's not. Its actually really complex. It can seem very simple from one's own perspective. 'I tell everyone everything, including what others tell me. Or I only talk about a conversation I had with a partner with someone else if I have their explicit permission. I tell my spouse everything cause that's what spouses do.'
And on and on.
Like so much else, this is where unconscious beliefs about how things 'are', can really screw things up. It's really important to ask partners (or anyone else really) how they want their information handled. It's not ok to assume everyone is on the same page. Why? Because everyone is different and has different comfort levels.
I fall more on the 'don't blab to all and sundry' side of things. For example, I tell partners that they not tell others intimate details of how we have sex. That's an area of privacy for me. I don't mind at all if they say 'so and so and I had sex' and I can discuss sexual health until the cows come home. But I don't want my sexual experiences used as some sort of creepy sexual aide. I get that many people find that hot and like the voyeurism/exhibitionism of it. But it's a limit for me. If they can't keep their mouth shut, or god forbid, are 'required' to report back, it's a no fucking zone.
I talk to partners about what I can tolerate being shared, what I want shared and what I don't. Things evolve and change, of course, and I'm always open to discussing it more. But I am firmly in the 'make no assumption and ask' camp. The time to assume implied consent is at work is *after* the privacy vs. sharing discussion, not before.
There are all kinds of social assumptions that can be quite the time bomb when people are sorting out comfort levels of information sharing. The biggest and most common, by far, one is one here in this thread - that people who are married or otherwise coupled up, will automatically share everything others tell them with their spouse. It is so accepted that it seems 'natural'. It's not. It's a social convention that helps impose hierarchy of coupled people over people who are not in a couple, or not in *that* couple. That relationship is more valued than a friendship, or another romantic relationship, so of course, they should know everything someone shares with their spouse. It is an insidious type of couple privilege. (Google solo poly and you will find the Solo Poly blog/website which has interesting discussions about this and other aspects of couple privilege, relationship escalators and much more. There is also a Solo Poly FB group, which is (appropriately enough
) private.)There isn't anything wrong with sharing everything with your spouse - or with the world -, *if* the people whose information you are sharing are ok with that *or* they understand that about you and adjust accordingly. One of my dear friends can't keep anything to herself. She just can't. So I don't tell her anything I would mind others hearing.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
Seriously?
See, this is how much I don't understand other people's notions of privacy. The idea that the name of a public business, in which two people were witnessed together in public, where Sprite could have walked by and seen the two of you having dinner... That this could be considered private information doesn't even begin to register in my brain. I would never in a million years have thought of something like that as being even remotely private.
Just because I don't value privacy doesn't automatically mean I go around telling everyone everything. Idle gossip is a flaw of poor character and a waste of time. I've got my own shit to worry about, I don't need to preoccupy myself with other people's shit. The truth of the matter is that your hopes and fears and dreams, while interesting and useful for building a connection, don't really affect me and won't stick around in my brain long enough for anyone to worry about their "privacy" because I, like all people, am far more concerned with my own hopes and fears and dream than yours.
I use the phrase "I tell him everything" but I don't literally tell him everything. What I tell him is everything that's important to me, that affects me, that affects him or our relationship, or that he needs to know for some other reason. But I say "everything" so that people don't expect confidentiality unless they ask for it explicitly.
Last edited:
Shaya
New member
From my position of relative inexperience, I see the last dozen posts as a back and forth between 2 world views.
From what I can tell, Schrodinger, you practice hierarchical poly. People you start a relationship with are clear that you and your husband have a hierarchy and they're okay with that default privilege. I imagine if they got to know you for several years and were no longer okay with that privilege, then explicit renegotiation would happen.
From what I can tell, Emm and Ravenscroft, you two identify with solo poly and relationship anarchy. You tend to make little or no assumptions about each relationship, crafting each one explicitly. Assumptions in the past have bitten those who assume on the bum, hence you prefer to be explicit in negotiations with no default rules. Hierarchy is okay only if all parties agree with it? I dunno. My own world view is too far removed from yours to really understand, sorry. Maybe I'm getting it wrong.
To me, this back and forth is an expression of 2 different world views, based largely in part on your different relationship styles. In hierarchical poly, I can totally see why Schrodinger would feel open about discussing things with her husband. I can also see why some relationship anarchists may feel that the hierarchy stinks too much of monogamy and wouldn't want any part of it unless explicitly negotiated.
Didn't mean to assign words or actions to Schrodinger, Emm or Ravenscroft despite mentioning you all by name above. But I'd like to know if you feel there's anything in my 'meta' analysis of the ongoing debate between you as coming from your different world views due to your different relationship styles? Thoughts?
From what I can tell, Schrodinger, you practice hierarchical poly. People you start a relationship with are clear that you and your husband have a hierarchy and they're okay with that default privilege. I imagine if they got to know you for several years and were no longer okay with that privilege, then explicit renegotiation would happen.
From what I can tell, Emm and Ravenscroft, you two identify with solo poly and relationship anarchy. You tend to make little or no assumptions about each relationship, crafting each one explicitly. Assumptions in the past have bitten those who assume on the bum, hence you prefer to be explicit in negotiations with no default rules. Hierarchy is okay only if all parties agree with it? I dunno. My own world view is too far removed from yours to really understand, sorry. Maybe I'm getting it wrong.
To me, this back and forth is an expression of 2 different world views, based largely in part on your different relationship styles. In hierarchical poly, I can totally see why Schrodinger would feel open about discussing things with her husband. I can also see why some relationship anarchists may feel that the hierarchy stinks too much of monogamy and wouldn't want any part of it unless explicitly negotiated.
Didn't mean to assign words or actions to Schrodinger, Emm or Ravenscroft despite mentioning you all by name above. But I'd like to know if you feel there's anything in my 'meta' analysis of the ongoing debate between you as coming from your different world views due to your different relationship styles? Thoughts?
Emm
Stealth Mod
Not dodging, just reading threads on my phone in bed. I'd assumed your questions were deliberately hyperbolic, but as you say they aren't I'll try to answer them now that it's no longer 3 am and I have a full-sized screen to work with.
No, unless it's something I think they'll be uncomfortable hearing but which it's imperative that they know, in which case I'll also offer support while they deal with it.
As above, if I think it's likely to have a negative effect on them and for some reason I'd be unable to help them work through it I probably won't burden them with my problem.
If that's a genuine question I'll eat my hat.
In this case, the fact that you are considering breaking up with your GF is not private between you and her, and can be shared with your husband. The fact that it's because she doesn't want to have sex with you is the reason for that, so it would reasonably be expected to be mentioned, but there's no reason that it should be discussed in detail. If the reason why she doesn't want to have sex with you involves anything beyond "she doesn't want to" (or perhaps "she says I suck in bed, can you give me any pointers?") then it's off limits because that's not relevant to the discussion you're having with your husband.
Trust isn't only about keeping words private, it's about things like being able to make myself emotionally or physically vulnerable with the expectation that my partner isn't going to take advantage of that to my detriment. If they are unable or unwilling to protect our private conversations then they have shown that they can't be trusted to protect me in other ways. I will, therefore, avoid emotional or physical vulnerability with them, meaning that we are unable to have a romantic or sexual relationship.
Next post...
If it's not something you can visualise them happily telling the bus driver, assume it's private unless specifically told otherwise. This is particularly the case for anything said in a heightened emotional state.
Err on the side of discretion.
Where it involves anything told to me during an intimate one-on-one conversation? Yes. I don't feel the need to gossip.
I assume that not slapping people is normal behaviour, so I don't expect people to slap me as a form of greeting and I wouldn't give someone a pass on slapping me without warning just because they're wired for S&M and it doesn't occur to them that there's anything wrong with doing so. If you are aware that your wiring isn't up to code then you need to make allowances for it in order to avoid causing harm. In your case, making sure that anyone who might feel they can confide in you knows to tell you "this is just between you and me" is such an allowance, but you saying "do you mind if I talk to Husband about this?" would be a better one since it doesn't rely on other people reading your mind to find the magic passphrase.
I would consider the noises I make during sex to be private between me and my partner. It's none of your husband's business whether or not I sound like a chipmunk on acid at the moment of truth, and the fact that you were there while I was making such noises doesn't suddenly make my sex noises public domain. Any discussion of those noises would be a gross violation of my privacy.
Did I miss any?
Emm
Stealth Mod
I have always assumed a base level of politeness, which includes not broadcasting personal information to uninvolved third parties. Since joining this forum I have come to discover that many people (usually in marriage-style relationships) don't share my view on what I consider to be a very clear black or white issue. The problem is that many of those people remain unaware of the assumptions they are making and become hugely defensive when they are pointed out.
Hierarchy is fine if all parties agree with it, but presuming that everyone will agree with "the rules" without explicit discussion is a mistake.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
To me, the term "hierarchical poly" brings up images of the married couple on a pedestal, making up rules for their subordinates to follow, in order to protect the sacredness of the marriage. Barfaroni. Rules are stupid. Just date grown-ups who know how to handle themselves, how to communicate when they're having challenges, and can afford basic respect to others. Why need rules? Rules don't work anyway, they always backfire. So fuck that "hierarchy."
Is there a privilege that goes with sharing finances and a living space with someone? Damn right there is -- the stakes are too high for it to be otherwise.
Privilege is proportional to vulnerability. No matter how much some new partner opens up their soul to me, my husband has done all that -- plus opened up the entirety of his personal info and legal identity. He has made himself so financially vulnerable to me that I could absolutely destroy his life if I wanted. He supported me financially for 8 years through two degrees. So if that doesn't earn him a little privilege, I don't know what does.
He's earned privilege by investing time and energy and vulnerability into a relationship with me, and I value the investment he's made. It would be really weird for someone else to invest that kind of vulnerability in me when I'm already married and sharing finances and a household with someone, but I suppose anything's possible? I mean, I am pretty awesome at budgeting, maybe some future partner might want me to take over their finances too, and then who knows what kind of relationship dynamics that would create? But if someone wanted to come along and, after a few years start negotiating privileges they hadn't earned? Probably not going to fly so well.
Last edited: