Marriage as an excuse

[Ravenscroft]

If that's a genuine question I'll eat my hat.

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

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.

Did I miss any?

o m FREAKIN g. EMM, I am so TOTALLY a fan... If we get banned together, does that mean we're married?

 

[Emm]

Depends; would I have to start telling you all the details about my other relationships?

 

[Ravenscroft]

I have always assumed a base level of politeness, which includes not broadcasting personal information to uninvolved third parties.

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.

Apologies for any appearance of "dogpiling" (which I seriously detest) but... YESSSS.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Depends; would I have to start telling you all the details about my other relationships?

Am I allowed to snicker? You can always PM me. But, seriously: thanks -- you've TOTALLY made my weekend. Greatly enjoying the IMNSHO.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Not to overlook --

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.

Oh, how this evening has cheered me.

 

[MeeraReed]

Can we bring it back to the OP's issue, please?

The debate about privacy isn't very important in the context of the OP's question. Her question is about her partners having a double standard about privacy--they have things (fights, etc) that are private between the two of them that by default they don't share with her, but she has nothing like that with either of her partners, because they share everything with each other.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Couldn't you just re-read the thread?

RECAP: the OP was told that her need for privacy is not so important as the spousal NEED to "share" everything.

Therefore, "the debate about privacy" is not merely significant, but central. Are you sure you're referring to THIS thread...?

Or is there something we've overlooked? If so, could you share it with us?

 

[vinsanity0]

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.

I'm trying to find where the line is. In my example, Elle is not comfortable with poly. It is likely that she would not like anything about us shared with another partner. Personally, I don't see a privacy issue.

 

[jayblue122]

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. ...

From what I can tell, Emm and Ravenscroft, you two identify with solo poly and relationship anarchy. ...

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.

So personally I have a very similar view on privacy as SchrodingersCat. However I also practice relationship anarchy. So I wouldn't say that the views on privacy and relationship styles are related.

I am an open book and do not like secrets.

I operate a similar way to SchrodingersCat. Both in relationships and in my close friendships. I have a really close friend group. I have told them from very early on "I expect that things told to me are fair game and cool to share with the group/have already been shared with the group and if this is not the case let me know".

When I have been In V's and other configurations, I let all my partners know that I talk about my feelings and what is going on in my life and thus they will hear about each other since they are both part of my life and if they wanted things not shared to please let me know. It was not something restricted to a particular couple, just how I operate when it comes to how I view privacy.

I do think it is important to share where you stand on privacy. But I definitely think it's more about how you view privacy and do not think that that it is about relationship structures.