New and Confused

[Al99]

IMO, Zanin gets much closer than most "official" definitions, so I'll put it up again --
Quote:
As such, the most fundamental element of polyamory—that of rejecting the monogamous standard, and radically rethinking how you understand, make meaning of and practice love, sex, relationships, commitment, communication, and so forth—is lost in favour of a cookie-cutter model that’s as easy as one, two, three.

I've reflected on this for a bit, and I actually do really appreciate the point - and can see how it would really appeal to the experienced polyamorist who has fully embraced poly at the philosophical level. For me, it is more of a philosophical commentary on poly than a definition per se, but certainly an insightful one.

Words and definitions are indeed slippery things, especially in the fuzzy studies, and it doesn't get much fuzzier than relationship models (as opposed, to say, Newtonian Physics - where definitions are a bit more definite) Al

 

[vinsanity0]

Much appreciated - I often say that the moral code that I aspire to is simply to "be kind and do no harm".

Sounds like a great philosophy for poly also - even if not clearly defining what poly is - but it seems there are different thoughts on that as well. Al

I have no problem not clearly defining what poly is. For me it would be "a form of non-monogamy in which multiple loving relationships have the potential to be formed." To me, anything else is merely philosophical.

I should have stated that my post was inspired by the talk of couple privilege. I would ask myself if what I was doing in one dyad would harm anyone else we are in a relationship with. I would expect the same of my partners.

 

[Ravenscroft]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Anyone -- clearly define "harm."

 

[vinsanity0]

Anyone -- clearly define "harm."

(noun) loss of or damage to a person's right, property, or physical or mental well-being

 

[Tinwen]

Anyone -- clearly define "harm."

LOL, Ravenscroft, while you are enoying the hack out of me in this discussion by insisting that there is no definition of polyamory (I also find the dictionary definition quite understandable), I'm with you on that one.

If harm was simple to define and quantify, ethical systems all throught space and time would be so much more simple and less conflicting.

Yet we have to start somewhere with language. There are ambiguities, often, and people who downright twist words and concepts, but - all communication relies on the fact that the majority of people in some culture mean something similar by the words they use. Polyamory is a neologism - which makes it both simpler and harder to understand it's meaning, hence the somewhat artificial dictionary difinition.

 

[FallenAngelina]

If harm was simple to define and quantify, ethical systems all throughout space and time would be so much more simple and less conflicting.

I can't see keeping cheating a secret to be one of those times. The greater kindness would be simply not to cheat - if you are in a mono relationship. If you decide you can't live with mono and that is more important than the relationship - then try to negotiate for poly or breakup if absolutely necessary.

In most of history and indeed in most part of the world today, cheating is considered the greater kindness, certainly much more respectful than suggesting something as insulting and insane as polyamory, in the view of the vast majority of people. We forget here (on this forum) that most people have never heard of the concept of polyamory and are nowhere near embracing it. An additional love partner is a complete and total threat to an existing partnership in the eyes on most people. Historically, long term marriages are chock-o-block full of secret adultery because secrecy is the respectful option in a social world that pities and fears cuckholds, "jilted" wives and "other women." There's a reason that secrecy has endured throughout the centuries and it's not because people are weak assholes. Most wives of powerful men have always expected that their husbands will have others and they expect not to have a public show of it. The term "ethical non-monogamy" implies that being totally upfront about wanting intimacy beyond one's main partner is the one and only way to go - and I find that term, and the implication of it, terribly misguided. Sure, it would be great if we all lived in a world where poly was understood and accepted and sure, it would be great if more people came out about whom they loved, but we don't live in such a world right now. Keeping a love affair secret from one's family and one's spouse is often indeed the kindest and most respectful option, given a social climate that is totally unaccepting of poly.

"Do no harm" is completely dependent on the social context. It's far from a fixed idea.

 

[kdt26417]

Re (from FallenAngelina):

"Keeping a love affair secret from one's family and one's spouse is often indeed the kindest and most respectful option, given a social climate that is totally unaccepting of poly."

I agree.

 

[vinsanity0]

In most of history and indeed in most part of the world today, cheating is considered the greater kindness, certainly much more respectful than suggesting something as insulting and insane as polyamory, in the view of the vast majority of people. We forget here (on this forum) that most people have never heard of the concept of polyamory and are nowhere near embracing it. An additional love partner is a complete and total threat to an existing partnership in the eyes on most people. Historically, long term marriages are chock-o-block full of secret adultery because secrecy is the respectful option in a social world that pities and fears cuckholds, "jilted" wives and "other women." There's a reason that secrecy has endured throughout the centuries and it's not because people are weak assholes. Most wives of powerful men have always expected that their husbands will have others and they expect not to have a public show of it. The term "ethical non-monogamy" implies that being totally upfront about wanting intimacy beyond one's main partner is the one and only way to go - and I find that term, and the implication of it, terribly misguided. Sure, it would be great if we all lived in a world where poly was understood and accepted and sure, it would be great if more people came out about whom they loved, but we don't live in such a world right now. Keeping a love affair secret from one's family and one's spouse is often indeed the kindest and most respectful option, given a social climate that is totally unaccepting of poly.

"Do no harm" is completely dependent on the social context. It's far from a fixed idea.

If a woman expects her husband to have affairs and just wants it kept out of the public eye, that is one thing. That is different from someone breaking an agreement of fidelity and lying about it to their spouse.

There are plenty of people who embrace polyamory, yet choose to remain secretive about it.

 

[Al99]

Quote: (From FallenAngelina)
"Keeping a love affair secret from one's family and one's spouse is often indeed the kindest and most respectful option, given a social climate that is totally unaccepting of poly."
Kevin responded.
I agree.

I could also agree that keeping a love affair secret from one's spouse and others might be the kindest thing to do if poly is not an option and if one absolutely cannot forego the love affair. Honoring the marital commitment and avoiding the extramarital love affair altogether might be even kinder. In practical terms, it avoids the possibility of discovery and the stress that living a secret lie can cause - and which then adversely affects the marriage. More philosophically, it avoids the ethical dilemma of dishonesty and lack of transparency - this will obviously vary according to the individual's personal code of ethics.

(Parenthetically)
Although I am not a member of a 12 Step group, my best friend experienced a miraculous recovery from serious alcoholism in AA - which led me to some study of their program and history, and to even incorporate some of their philosophy into my own. One important concept is that of "rigorous honesty" - which the recovering addict must practice in order to have the best chance of continued sobriety. A commitment to rigorous honesty all but rules out having secret affairs - and actually makes poly an excellent option for 12 Step folks because of the honesty and transparency (and in fact, our openly poly friend is in such a program). I would actually contend that is very likely that AA's co-founder, Bill Wilson, had a "poly type" understanding with his wife, Lois. It is historically documented that he had extramarital relationships with at least two women after he founded AA - and there is at least one picture of Bill, Lois, and one of the "other women" together. The common belief is that Bill was simply having affairs. However, given his dedication to the program that he largely formulated - with its emphasis on rigorous honesty, I consider it far more likely that he was honest and transparent - and had these relationships with Lois' knowledge and consent - with some type of ethical consensual non-monogamous understanding.

And Vinsanity wrote:

If a woman expects her husband to have affairs and just wants it kept out of the public eye, that is one thing. That is different from someone breaking an agreement of fidelity and lying about it to their spouse.

I agree - these type understandings that exist in certain cultures - where it is just understood that there might be extramarital relationships - are implicitly consensual - somewhat of a generalized DADT. Al

 

[FallenAngelina]

There are plenty of people who embrace polyamory, yet choose to remain secretive about it.

I wasn't talking about embracing poly. Maybe read my post again?

 

[FallenAngelina]

I could also agree that keeping a love affair secret from one's spouse and others might be the kindest thing to do if poly is not an option and if one absolutely cannot forego the love affair. Honoring the marital commitment and avoiding the extramarital love affair altogether might be even kinder.

This is akin to recommending abstinence as a form of STD and birth control. Problem is, people just don't do it because they are human. My post is about people taking the kindest options, given the realities of their social worlds and their human bodies, spirits and minds. We in the poly world get up on our high horses all too often about how people should just abstain if they can't be honest with their spouse and that is exactly like telling teenagers to just abstain if they can't wait for the "proper" context in which to have sex. The stereotype is that only jerks and idiots have affairs, but the truth is that many good people have affairs for some pretty understandable reasons. To get all judgy about affairs doesn't really serve any purpose except to keep driving people to even more secrecy about them. Judging behavior rarely stops it.

One important concept is that of "rigorous honesty" - which the recovering addict must practice in order to have the best chance of continued sobriety.

Absolutely, yes.

But just like a 12 step program and just like polyamory, this policy of rigorous honesty only works when it's a personal choice. It's problematic and has a huge failure rate when it's imposed upon people from the outside.

 

[vinsanity0]

I wasn't talking about embracing poly. Maybe read my post again?

I didn't say you were.

 

[kdt26417]

Re (from FallenAngelina):

"This is akin to recommending abstinence as a form of STD and birth control. Problem is, people just don't do it because they are human. My post is about people taking the kindest options, given the realities of their social worlds and their human bodies, spirits and minds. We in the poly world get up on our high horses all too often about how people should just abstain if they can't be honest with their spouse and that is exactly like telling teenagers to just abstain if they can't wait for the 'proper' context in which to have sex. The stereotype is that only jerks and idiots have affairs, but the truth is that many good people have affairs for some pretty understandable reasons. To get all judgy about affairs doesn't really serve any purpose except to keep driving people to even *more* secrecy about them. Judging behavior rarely stops it."

Well said.

 

[Ravenscroft]

If a woman expects her husband to have affairs and just wants it kept out of the public eye, that is one thing. That is different from someone breaking an agreement of fidelity and lying about it to their spouse. ... There are plenty of people who embrace polyamory, yet choose to remain secretive about it.

See, that's where you pivot, & reframe the terms, thus skewing the conversation -- something quite common when definitions are avoided.

For a few posts, it looked like we were all on the same page with the concept of hiding one's shenanigans from one's "life partner" with inclusion oif deceit & outright lies.

Yet now this is equated to being discreet or keeping a low profile in a disapproving society, sometimes a.k.a. tall poppy syndrome. Because that's how most polyfolk generally seem to feel, suddenly outright deceit -- which some MIGHT call "harm" -- is rationalised away as "not actually much worse than what YOU do."

Propaganda 1-01, really.

My parents knew a guy who was truly blatant about his cheating. If his wife had to work the second shift, he'd not only take his girlfriend out to local bars, but show up at parties with her. It seems like his wife was the ONLY person who wasn't aware of this.

Did that mean this was somehow more moral, there was less harm than if he was lying to the entire town?

Was there harm in expecting his social circle to continuously lie to wife's face on his behalf?

 

[Ravenscroft]

The stereotype is that only jerks and idiots have affairs

Okay, I will cop to having a generally negative view of adultery. Naturally, this was influenced by watching various degree of fling cause massive familial disruption, & few examples (none, really) where discovery or disclosure led to anything overall pleasant.

But it does seem to be a relational form that attracts PLENTY of rationalizing jerks (of all genders & preferences). It forces people into supporting the deceit.

Yes, it's judgmental to always paint the picture as ALL secretively nonmonogamous people are moral abject failures. But like ads for cars, it should have a little warning at the bottom: "Do not attempt. Professional driver on closed course."

 

[FallenAngelina]

Let me ask: Do we (general poly "we") judge all of the gay people who had secret relationships with other gay people, but were in heterosexual marriages before, say, 1990? Do we judge all of them for having affairs? Do we expect that they should have never gotten married or if so, had been either "ethically non-monogamous" with their spouses or have chosen abstinence with all others? Do we recognize that gay people lived in a social world that was largely hostile to gay relationships and that millions of homosexuals lived with the social pressure of having to choose heterosexual marriage? I think that many of us in the poly community would give these folks a pass or at very least we'd say that it's none of our business - let bygones be bygones and we'd understand the impossible social position most homosexuals were in unless they happened to live in one of a very few gay friendly pockets of the world.

So it is with people now who find themselves loving two people at once. I'm not talking about people who are indeed jerks and just want to fuck around. I'm talking about the many people who really do come to love someone in addition to their spouse/partner and really do live in a social world where their lives would fall apart if they were to come out to their spouse. Poly is just not an option that we can reasonably expect most people to have or even be aware of, at least today. Do we judge these people harshly or do we try to understand their very real social limitations and threats, just as we do (I'm assuming we do) for all of the gay people who lived (some who still do) in a time when their heart's desire relationships were just not feasible to have out in the open.

 

[kdt26417]

^^^+1

 

[Ravenscroft]

Poly is just not an option that we can reasonably expect most people to have

No argument here. That dovetails with my belief that "not everyone has the ability to live polyamorously."

But the analogy to closeted homosexuality doesn't work. I cannot pretend that nonmonogamy (furtive or blatant) has had any sort of similar history. Here's a few points for comparison.

• Germany rounded up homosexuals (known & suspected alike) & shipped them off to death camps.
• In 1950, a Senate subcommittee produced a report, "Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government" --
  

  It is an accepted fact among intelligence agencies that espionage organizations the world over consider sex perverts who are in possession of or have access to confidential material to be prime targets where pressure can be exerted.
  
  ...those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons. In addition there is an abundance of evidence to sustain the conclusion that indulgence in acts of sex perversion weakens the moral fiber of an individual to a degree that he is not suitable for a position of responsibility.

• Until ~2000, same-gender sexual acts were illegal in the United States; suspicion of "sodomy" was occasionally investigated by the police, though this had tailed off since the 1950s. A 2016 survey found that about 13% of the country believes homosexuality ought to be criminal, 65% disagree... & that makes us about 12th most liberal nation on Earth. (The UK is 22% & 61%.)
• Until 1973, homosexuality was in the DSM as a mental disorder, & could result in commitment to a mental hospital or even (given its illegality) a prison hospital.
• It was considered sport to beat or kill a homosexual. These assaults rarely led to arrest, much less prosecution.
• Homosexuality wasroutinely denounced from the pulpit (or equivalent thereof) of almost EVERY religion.
• Even today, listening to my co-workers, I get a strong feeling (often) that many people in this country, especially those in a Rightist social-media bubble, can't differentiate homosexuality from cross-dressing from pedophilia from transgender -- not because they're stupid, but from laziness: it's just easier to alternately snicker & gripe about "THOSE people."

In sum,homosexuals had every reason to live in fear & shame & self-disgust thanks to the heaps of crap dumped on them practically every waking moment.

...something I suspect very few infidelitous people have ever suffered. Until this changes, the analogy fails.

You've got a good case that might be phrased as secretive extramarital affairs are a valid form of nonmonogamy. This I can agree with (& am in fact surprised it's not listed in the Non-monogamy article in Wikipedia). So are cuckoldry & plural marriage. I cannot say that I am a supporter of those three expressions, & I certainly do not want them stirred somehow into polyamory.

If that is "harsh judgment," then I'm okay with that. And I feel no need whatever to "understand" their plight -- is this a choice made by rational adults? Do they have the mettle to deserve Romantic canonization? Are they not getting in my way? Then I'm fine with whoever doing whatever. If they need sympathy, then they ought to form their own damned support groups or at least find a therapist -- it is NOT my right (much less my duty) to force support upon them, & I doubt anyone else has requisite moral stature.

In the end, I can't agree that a smattering of closeted nonmons justifies all (even most) extramarital affairs.

And let's not overlook the popular view of those heartfelt pure trysts. Riffling through memory, it seems like almost EVERY depiction of affairs & vees in film & TV is based to some degree upon various facets of the same villain: evil temptress, crazed psycho-bitch, Lilith, seducer, destroyer of good-willed weak-spined Man. Bullshit Monogamist Romanticism.

 

[Al99]

What an interesting series of turns and twists this thread has taken.

This is akin to recommending abstinence as a form of STD and birth control. Problem is, people just don't do it because they are human. My post is about people taking the kindest options, given the realities of their social worlds and their human bodies, spirits and minds. We in the poly world get up on our high horses all too often about how people should just abstain if they can't be honest with their spouse and that is exactly like telling teenagers to just abstain if they can't wait for the "proper" context in which to have sex. The stereotype is that only jerks and idiots have affairs, but the truth is that many good people have affairs for some pretty understandable reasons. To get all judgy about affairs doesn't really serve any purpose except to keep driving people to even more secrecy about them. Judging behavior rarely stops it.

So - a few comments about this as it was in reply to my post that perhaps the kindest thing to do in a mono marriage is just not to cheat at all.

First, after reading this Forum daily for several months, I would concur that poly folks generally frown on cheating and adultery. I personally don't have enough emotional investment in poly to be offended by cheating from the normal poly perspective. But the quite negative view of cheating is clearly embedded in the poly culture - for better or worse.

It really wasn't my intention to personally judge anyone for making the choice to have an affair - I do aspire to avoid such judgments, especially if I don't know all the facts. I (personally) would certainly never accuse someone of being a jerk or an idiot for having an affair - I know too many exceptional people that also happened to have had affairs.

My point would have been that if you make the commitment to a mono marriage with the expectation of sexual fidelity, in general (at least so it seems to me) that fidelity should be the ideal goal - since the commitment was made. Now I do fully understand your point about the realities of society and the like - and even agree with that to a point. We are all human, and things happen - and that doesn't make anyone evil or a bad person.

I would differ somewhat with the analogy that promoting fidelity in a mono marriage is akin to encouraging teenagers to practice abstinence. Teens, despite being encouraged to be abstinent, can have sex freely without violating the type of commitment that is made when one makes the choice to marry. When a married individual makes the choice to have an affair, they have made a conscious decision to forego their commitment to sexual fidelity in the marriage. They may have a very good reason for doing so, but they are accountable for that decision - and there are risks involved for all involved, with the potential for great hurt and pain if discovered. And, although I believe that honoring such a serious commitment would generally be the ideal, I aspire not to judge someone for making the decision to have an affair - because, as has been pointed out, we are all only humans living in a flawed society. And obviously poly is not an option for many in our society.

I will add that I believe most adults have come to understand that you can love more than one person at a time - or even feel in love with more than one person at a time. I think I figured this out around the age of 18. It is the decision to act on these feelings that makes all the difference. And, at the end of the day it is a choice - and that choice is each person's to make, and to be accountable for. And we can all try to avoid judging that choice - since we can never really know everything that went into it.

Just a couple of cents worth on an interesting discussion. Al

 

[vinsanity0]

See, that's where you pivot, & reframe the terms, thus skewing the conversation -- something quite common when definitions are avoided.

For a few posts, it looked like we were all on the same page with the concept of hiding one's shenanigans from one's "life partner" with inclusion oif deceit & outright lies.

Yet now this is equated to being discreet or keeping a low profile in a disapproving society, sometimes a.k.a. tall poppy syndrome. Because that's how most polyfolk generally seem to feel, suddenly outright deceit -- which some MIGHT call "harm" -- is rationalised away as "not actually much worse than what YOU do."

Propaganda 1-01, really.

My parents knew a guy who was truly blatant about his cheating. If his wife had to work the second shift, he'd not only take his girlfriend out to local bars, but show up at parties with her. It seems like his wife was the ONLY person who wasn't aware of this.

Did that mean this was somehow more moral, there was less harm than if he was lying to the entire town?

Was there harm in expecting his social circle to continuously lie to wife's face on his behalf?

Not sure why that was your response to what you quoted from me.