Not really a blog

The lockdown has started me not really blogging. This will really change the world.

Last night, over dinner, we facetimed some dear friends from our old area in the US. 3 friends have contracted CV19. One is on a ventilator. Without organ failure though so there is reason to be hopeful. The other 2 are now home after being in hospital for a few days. One of those people's mother died of it 2 days ago though they were estranged. Weirdly I know of around 12 people around the world who have had the virus confirmed via testing. I guess that happens when you have lived in several popular places and there is a pandemic. I realized this when a conspiracy theory buddy wrote on their Facebook status "but do you actually know anyone who has this virus?" as everyone they knew with symptoms was refused a test. I realized then that I knew around 8 people at that point. This is no hoax.

During the facetime, we got to speaking about my friend's job as a psychiatrist and counsellor. Recently my friend, Ivy, has moved from more family therapy to couple's and individual therapy for adults and is advertising where appropriate as specialising in ENM. Ivy has been poly all her life. She had two mothers who were "sister wives" for all intents and purposes. They subscribed to some sort of polygyny due to their religious background but they left that church before Ivy was born. They stayed as a 3 in 2 different homes but the religious aspects of their lifestyle were dropped. Ivy practices solo poly herself.

She's enjoying her new job but she's found something quite disappointing. The best majority of her poly clients are women with what she would say are indications of a wider pathology like a personality disorder or attachment disorder. Very few of her female clients would she describe as well adjusted. Many of them have severe depression or anxiety +/- self harm, suicidal thoughts and attempts plus physically or emotionally abusive behaviour and a lack of emotional regulation. As her background is in psychiatry and not purely talking therapies, she's had to speak potential diagnoses with some clients because she feels unless an underlying diagnosis is confirmed if there is one, nobody can move forward.

She knows it isn't all poly women as she knows and dates many socially but she's feeling like the ones who end up in therapy might fit the bill of people who are poly for the wrong reasons.

Our other friend, Stu, hasn't been all that close to his nesting partner for some time though work and life managed to distract them both from this reality. Now they are quarantined as they both had mild symptoms but even in the lockdown when they've been both at work, a polite disinterest and social distancing has evolved into thinly veiled resentment. Well not at all veiled. They've been screaming at each other or totally ignoring each other. Stu wants to come to Europe asap. He's had enough of America and Americans. He's currently trying to sue a hospital for medical treatment he didn't need and isn't endorsed by evidence and getting nowhere. He hates the place.

I miss my masseuse. Yesterday I was thinking of ways he could wear a hazmat suit and give me a massage though I'm sure the gloves would negate the quality of his expert kneading.

My cousin is convinced her cat has CV19.

This is why I don't blog or speak much about my personal life. I live a bizarre life full of the weirdest people.
 

MeeraReed

Member
Cats supposedly CAN get the virus...


RE: Your therapist friend Ivy. Something about her theory isn't sitting well with me. People with undiagnosed personality disorders, attachment issues, and abusive tendencies are going to struggle in any relationship. Wouldn't monogamy be just as hard for them, if not even more isolating? I'm just not sure they're "poly for the wrong reasons."
 
Cats supposedly CAN get the virus...


RE: Your therapist friend Ivy. Something about her theory isn't sitting well with me. People with undiagnosed personality disorders, attachment issues, and abusive tendencies are going to struggle in any relationship. Wouldn't monogamy be just as hard for them, if not even more isolating? I'm just not sure they're "poly for the wrong reasons."

Ivy is a poly woman who dates poly women herself so it isn't that she thinks this of all poly women at all. Just that the female clients she has (ie people unhappy or discontent enough to seek therapy) who are also poly fit this bill. It doesn't seem incidental, like their race or sexuality, it seems connected to their wider issues with relationships and having multiple (not very successful) relationships is a way to mask or facilitate some of these issues. One relationship went really, really badly. She thought she would have to testify but a plea deal rendered it unnecessary.
 

Magdlyn

Active member
Lots of poly people, men and women, "end up" in therapy. Therapy is a good thing for anyone. Few of us are so entirely well adjusted that we wouldn't benefit from it at some point in our lives.

Saying "most poly women that end up in therapy" have severe depression leading to self harm or suicidal thoughts/attempts, abusive behavior, or are controlling, is extremely misleading. Many poly women and men I know have been in therapy and have none of these extreme behaviors.
 
Lots of poly people, men and women, "end up" in therapy. Therapy is a good thing for anyone. Few of us are so entirely well adjusted that we wouldn't benefit from it at some point in our lives.

Saying "most poly women that end up in therapy" have severe depression leading to self harm or suicidal thoughts/attempts, abusive behavior, or are controlling, is extremely misleading. Many poly women and men I know have been in therapy and have none of these extreme behaviors.

That's not what I said. I said my friend is a psychiatrist and counsellor and has recently advertised as poly friendly. The women that are poly and seek her services seem to mostly have severe attachment and/or personality disorders.

I think sometimes we don't know exactly what goes on behind closed doors or why people do the things we see them do. Their therapist however might have a much better idea. What we see as a happy, mutually beneficial relationship might not be at all. Sometimes we are caught surprised when one partner admits things haven't been mutually beneficial for a long time

Ivy said that she advertised as poly friendly as she had heard of so many poly people who said their therapist was "against poly". She now thinks it is more likely that a sizeable amount of the poly people who end up in therapy have chosen this relationship structure due to faults within themselves rather than positive traits. So for example, you'll have a woman who drains any partner she has and no one person can take all of that on. So she has two or three partners instead. These relationships will always be tainted by the fact that she is draining. It has nothing to do with wanting multiple relationships and everything to do with spreading your weight around to make it a more manageable load.

I have nothing against therapists for the most part. I think you have to be extremely careful about their qualifications because it is quite easy to appropriate the term counselor or therapist with minimal credentials in a lot of countries. Aside from poly, I know people with a lot of really obvious problems who live in therapy yet their therapist never calls them out on behaviour that is either unfair to others (like kids) or downright dangerous for the people involved. I do think that is problematic. I know Ivy has strict boundaries around abusive clients. She won't continue to see someone if she feels their is abuse coming from her clients side and they won't take steps to stop it immediately. She has enough work to be picky and she said you should always seek that in any type of psychiatrist or counsellor.


A long time ago I wrote a thread about a scary metamour. That metamour ended their own life very recently. I just heard/saw last night. Sad news. They really needed help.
 

MeeraReed

Member
I'm interested in Ivy's theory because I think she's onto something. BUT the way she's framing it is not sitting right with me.

On this forum we have all heard many stories about horrible metamours. Specifically, we hear from women who are struggling with dating a poly guy whose wife/primary partner is making things extremely difficult for the girlfriend. Usually, the wife has other partners of her own, but she can't handle her husband dating seriously. She says all the right poly things but then is a nightmare to her metamour. Often it sounds like she has severe undiagnosed issues (or sometimes, diagnosed but unmanaged issues). The wife's behavior often seems at the very least emotionally abusive, perhaps toward her husband as well as toward her metamour.

It's anecdotal, but it happens enough that it seems to be a phenomenon worth investigating. It sounds like Ivy is getting clients who are like the wife in these anecdotes.

It may be true that these people should not be doing poly until they are managing their issues better. But I don't think it's fair to say they are "poly for the wrong reasons." No therapist would ever say that someone is "monogamous for the wrong reasons."

People have a right to be poly if they want to be poly. These women are seeking help--they certainly eagerly sought out a poly-friendly therapist.

I would argue that monogamous women with their same issues are simply less likely to seek help. The poly community is more pro-therapy than mainstream society in general (I think), and poly relationships have more people in them to demand that partners and metamours seek therapy. Monogamous relationships are more isolating. It's also more "allowed" to be controlling, possessive, and borderline emotionally abusive in monogamy (because of false views about what a "healthy" monogamous relationship looks like).

So I think Ivy is just seeing the polyamorous examples of emotional issues that can remain hidden in mainstream monogamy.

I do think that people with very intense personalities or a lot of emotional needs will have a tendency to seek out multiple partners. But I'm not sure that that's "poly for the wrong reasons."
 
I'm interested in Ivy's theory because I think she's onto something. BUT the way she's framing it is not sitting right with me.

On this forum we have all heard many stories about horrible metamours. Specifically, we hear from women who are struggling with dating a poly guy whose wife/primary partner is making things extremely difficult for the girlfriend. Usually, the wife has other partners of her own, but she can't handle her husband dating seriously. She says all the right poly things but then is a nightmare to her metamour. Often it sounds like she has severe undiagnosed issues (or sometimes, diagnosed but unmanaged issues). The wife's behavior often seems at the very least emotionally abusive, perhaps toward her husband as well as toward her metamour.

It's anecdotal, but it happens enough that it seems to be a phenomenon worth investigating. It sounds like Ivy is getting clients who are like the wife in these anecdotes.

It may be true that these people should not be doing poly until they are managing their issues better. But I don't think it's fair to say they are "poly for the wrong reasons." No therapist would ever say that someone is "monogamous for the wrong reasons."

People have a right to be poly if they want to be poly. These women are seeking help--they certainly eagerly sought out a poly-friendly therapist.

I would argue that monogamous women with their same issues are simply less likely to seek help. The poly community is more pro-therapy than mainstream society in general (I think), and poly relationships have more people in them to demand that partners and metamours seek therapy. Monogamous relationships are more isolating. It's also more "allowed" to be controlling, possessive, and borderline emotionally abusive in monogamy (because of false views about what a "healthy" monogamous relationship looks like).

So I think Ivy is just seeing the polyamorous examples of emotional issues that can remain hidden in mainstream monogamy.

I do think that people with very intense personalities or a lot of emotional needs will have a tendency to seek out multiple partners. But I'm not sure that that's "poly for the wrong reasons."


I disagree that no therapist would say that one is mono for the wrong reasons. It's quite common to suggest that someone is forming relationships from some negative motivation. Serial monogomaists, players, etc.. The difference, perhaps, with these women, is that they are sustaining one or more relationships but still seeking new attachments for the same reasons as someone who consents to regrettable, random sexual interactions in their quest to find love and affection. Without those long term relationships, they'd have a similar pattern to anyone else who seemed unable to form mutual long term commitments.

Do remember that this is the way I'm framing a complex conversations that didnt just form over one conversation. "Paraphrasing" would be a generous term, here.
 
Life goes on.

We live in SmallTownsVille. It is a place where everyone always wants to be in a state of outrage, fear, misery or discontentment. One neighbour wanted to call the police on another neighbour for grilling food and playing music with their other household members. This house is a mix of medical students and recent graduates so the neighbour feels that they should be isolating in their rooms due to their exposure to the virus. I hope they have a good time in lockdown before going out to risk their lives again.

I think I'm over this place. We moved here for a sense of liberalism that is being slowly eradicated. We intended to live in the capital but work actually pushed us here, about 40 miles from the capital. Well it pushed my partner here. I am lucky enough to work remotely for the most part these days. My partner works long hours usually. Failing to have my house to myself to work as I wish has been challenging. Even the pets are confused. I've heard many people's cats are overjoyed by the additional human company. Ours are not. One disappeared for 2 days last week.

One of my other partners, Rose, is having issues with her two other non-nesting partners in terms of dealing with the quarantine. She's totally isolating now with her nesting partner, Thorn, because of his high risk status and their feeling that her social distancing isn't adequate given people's inability to follow the rules or take appropriate caution.

My metamours haven't been around long enough to actually feel how much Thorn's health issues affects her availability to others and this has been quite an extreme way to find out. Other people have found ways to keep 2 or more households at a risk level low enough to allow for some visiting or socially distanced meetings outside in accordance with lockdown rules. For instance, I went for a walk with a friend through our local park and back around the block keeping a 2 metre distance. However, Rose is staying in all the time and only accepting deliveries from companies or friends which she disinfects before bringing into the main part of their home though she is probably healthier than me.

This hasn't gone down too well with her other partners who perhaps weren't aware of how couple's privilege manifests in Rose's case. Rose is practical though rather than sentimental. She will see it as in their best interests if they terminate unmet expectations sooner rather than later. Rose would (wrongly) object to calling this couple's privilege because she is protecting Thorn's health and not his feelings. Luckily our longer term relationship as well as my relationship with Thorn means that we have more opportunity to interact. We can Facetime regardless of his presence because he will join in rather than her having to take time away from him to interact with me. On the other hand, the interaction she has with those partners is more likely to have intimacy that would not be appropriate if it is possible in a group video situation where we discuss the horrors of this pandemic.
 
Ivy asked a interesting question about forums like this, or Fetlife, or Reddit: how much responsibility do we have to our fellow members?

She has a legal responsibility to report abuse of children and the vulnerable. If a client isn't particularly vulnerable per se, but is being abused, she has to show how she both highlights how it comes under the criteria of abuse AND show that she advised the client of safe next steps. Unfortunately, she has been called upon to show she took those steps in the past.

I advised her of the limitations that rules might present in this case. For example, the rule about blogging on this site. She was interested in how far that would go. If I reported that I am objectively abusive to a partner but didn't accept comments on my blog, what would happen? Would posts detailing my abusive behaviour just sit on the site? Would those posts or the blog just be deleted and/or the user banned? Or would the rule be relaxed so people could address what is harmful behaviour?

If you take it back a notch to just objectively unhealthy behaviour, how much do the members of forums actively enable this behaviour by ignoring or creating rules which facilitate people with the space to share these views? I mean, say all people in a closed MFF triad were banned from this site because it was decided that configuration is just too problematic, it wouldn't stop unicorn hunting which is arguably the problem. But perhaps that sort of blatant objectification and misogyny will only be stamped out if, as a collection, people decide that it isn't okay to want or need a completely closed triad founded on a OPP. If you do want that or need that, then you need to do more work on yourself.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
I'm picturing a scenario where a newbie posts in the intro section and says, "We are a happily married MF couple. He is hetero, she is bi. We are searching for a second bi female to complete us. If interested please email us at the following address." Whereupon, a moderator posts and says, "The kind of activity you are engaging in is called unicorn hunting, and it is not tolerated on this forum. Cease your search for a bi female immediately, or you will be banned." Sounds gratifying on paper, but I doubt it would happen in practice. Is the answer, then, for a swarm of members to post, criticizing, in unison, the offending couple for their unicorn hunting ways? Then the offending couple would probably go away, but would probably continue their HBB search. But at least Polyamory.com wouldn't be helping them do that, right?
 

icesong

Member
I mean honestly in certain FB groups that is, basically, what happens. And yes, many of those... seekers, as it were, just continue seeking in other forums. Whether that means the hands of those in the forums that told them to go away are clean is an ongoing question.
 

vinsanity0

Active member
But a post like that in the Intro section always gets a few responses pointing out how wrong that is. However, the rules here prohibit criticising people who post such ads in the Dating section.

I would hope most people agree that educating people is better than simply banning them. Or maybe I should say trying to educate them. There is no guarantee people will listen.
 
I'm picturing a scenario where a newbie posts in the intro section and says, "We are a happily married MF couple. He is hetero, she is bi. We are searching for a second bi female to complete us. If interested please email us at the following address." Whereupon, a moderator posts and says, "The kind of activity you are engaging in is called unicorn hunting, and it is not tolerated on this forum. Cease your search for a bi female immediately, or you will be banned." Sounds gratifying on paper, but I doubt it would happen in practice. Is the answer, then, for a swarm of members to post, criticizing, in unison, the offending couple for their unicorn hunting ways? Then the offending couple would probably go away, but would probably continue their HBB search. But at least Polyamory.com wouldn't be helping them do that, right?

Perhaps if you were not welcome in a place just because you're a unicorn hunter, it might provoke you to seriously reconsider unicorn hunting. I think I'd rethink polyamory if you were asked to leave places just for being poly. I would start to think there's obviously something wrong with it that I'm not seeing. The way we deal with it now, people just think that we are bigots.

It would take like 3 or 4 major sites say like here, fetlife, reddit and some Facebook groups to collaborate. So literally as you left one site and went to join the other, you'd be asked to leave there as well.
 
I'm also not talking solely about "acute" situations like a newcomer introductory post but more patterns of destructive and/or harmful behaviour.

.................................................................................................

When my nesting partner and I moved in together, it was intended to be a practical arrangement, mostly. It wasn't necessary, per se, but it was helpful. There was definitely an element of wanting to spend more time together. I don't think either Jules or I saw it as a romantic commitment, more a commitment to doing things that make us happy. Other than sex, I wouldn't say that we operated all that differently from close room mates who share meals and chores.

It was when we moved for Jules' work that I think something subtle changed. Somewhere, we went from a 2 people who are partners and enjoy sharing the same home, to a nesting couple. For many reasons, it is something we would have resisted in the past: becoming a nesting couple. "Live in" partner is what she would call me. This lockdown has highlighted that we are definitely a nesting couple. There's good and bad in that. Her usual long hours plus our busy social and romantic lives hide those bad bits of being a nesting couple. Now, there's nothing to hide behind.

It may sound like we've been arguing but that's not the case at all. Our lives are busy so normally, we do schedule time together. Quality time where we clear a space in the diary to come together uninterrupted. We have never simply assumed each other's availability. Now, WFH on her part has meant that we do have these prolonged impromptu times where we realise that we have time to do something together. Lunches. Afternoon baths. Watch shows together. Make plans.

I've always argued that actually nesting couples do not have as much quality time as one might think despite sharing a house. I think if at least one of you does not work and has few commitments outside the home, there's A LOT of time advantage that comes with that. Presently, we are both WFH, barely going out and cannot fulfil our wider commitments in person so we are in that situation.

Right now it is still a novelty to realise that we can plan and cook a 2 course lunch as well as work if we do it together. I'm sure if this carries on much longer, we won't make so much of these unscheduled moments. But now, we are marvelling in this time we have together and making most moments memorable. Over dinner, we usually video call friends around the world. Sometimes they'll be having a meal too so it's nice.

This whole experience has to influence how we do things after the lockdown somehow. I'm not sure how yet. But I think it will enhance our relationship if we learn something from all this. It might not necessarily be making more of the moments we share space accidentally. It might be in fact sticking more strictly to the times we do not and making a conscious effort not to just rub up alongside each other. I can't quite make sense of it now. But I know neither of us felt we wanted more or less time together.

I think I'm concerned that we were always happy as we were and this might not keep us happy for as long. You know like a couple who happily co-habit and maybe even co-parent as well for years and then they marry years after their relationship begun only to divorce a relatively short time later? I've known a lot of people like that. Poly and mono. You always think marriage would be fine for them because they've essentially lived as spouses for years so what will really change?
 
I was thinking about this today and there is a post related to the subject my a new member today.

Could a partner ask me for monogamy? Is it something even realistic to ask for from me? I think it depends on your definition of monogamy. A partner could ask me not to have sex with anyone else. Or commit to a relationship which is not friendship with anyone else. But is that monogamy? I don't think so. I think that might be exclusivity at best. To be monogamous, or to feel monogamous, I'd have to not have the feelings I can form for other people. I'd have to not want to have them. I can't do that so it isn't realistic for me. I think I'd have to get them to ask me the right question which would be to close the relationship, temporarily or otherwise. I almost definitely wouldn't agree to it but it is more representative of something I could at least theoretically offer someone. Monogamy is not an option. An expectation of monogamy, even to alleviate extreme stress or pain from a traumatic event, would probably end an otherwise thriving relationship. Exclusivity, or closing the relationship to new partners, temporarily, we can discuss at such times.

Words mean a lot to me. Someone using the word monogamy to frame their need for stability or undivided attention from me tells me that they don't really get me. They don't get what being polyamorous is about. It's like the guy who thinks his heterosexual relationship with a bisexual woman erases her bisexuality. It isn't that they need me to not form new relationships or even, Heaven forbid, their need for me to end existing relationships (which I'd never do), it's that they think I could simply choose not to have the capacity for intimacy with multiple people and that I can switch off my desire to exercise that capacity. It means you dont know me.
 
I wrote a thread ages ago about a metamour who was unstable to say the least. I think I tried to keep specifics under wraps at the time but it basically consisted of her keeping a blog of sorts on Fetlife where she would write really troubling things about her thoughts and feelings about her partners and metamours. I think she had a personality disorder which was diagnosed later on.

I remember one time, our hinge partner had a birthday party for his best friend and we both attended. To me, our hinge partner was attending with his best friend so neither of us were his dates that night. I brought my own date in fact. My metamour wrote about the event on Fetlife as if she were his date that night and they organized and attended the party as a couple for his best friend. Although that post never had the threatening edge of others they had written, it was still very unsettling for me. I kept wondering if she made it up or if she remembered things that way. It was the first post, but before long, her posts would speak of an internal rage and resentment for her metamours.

Times when you saw her and thought all was well, you'd find a post or status which spoke of the hatred and anger she had towards you for things she perceived as slights. It could be as simple as getting on very well with a friend of his you've just met. She would believe it was a calculated move against her. Reading these posts made me feel safer. I felt like I would be able to predict if she was going to act on those feelings in any way. I used to have nightmares about her attacking me with scissors because I knew she trimmed her own hair weekly.

Our Hinge partner, Leafy, has been writing posts about her suicide like one would about a terminally Ill loved one who booked in at Dignitas. And maybe that is how it is. Maybe it was euthanisia. Maybe there was no other outlet. I

t's annoying me to an extent because I realize how much of a part he played in inflicting this scary behaviour on others. I feel like if he wanted to take that on, he should have sacrificed other relationships given that you couldn't help but be affected by her actions. I mean, yes, I could have totally ignored her posts. We weren't even Fetlife friends. But I was bothered that we were both linked to his profile and anyone else could see that my metamour seriously resented my presence in our partner's life and she often felt overwhelmed by how negative this made her feel. It made her feel like causing physical damage to herself, others or objects. It was scary.

Apparently, her family have always felt that the kink and poly communities she frequented exacerbated her issues and that the people she befriended or partnered had a greater responsibility to comprehend that she wasn't healthy enough to do this. On Fetlife recently in one of the poly groups, there was a thread asking if people think one can be too traumatised to ever be poly. I thought of her. Her family have said that all funeral arrangements will be private and for family and family friends only and not only because of CV19, but because they feel her friends were irresponsible. I think they felt she should be forced into a mental health facility of some kind or at least that she would go voluntarily if people gave her enough tough love by rejecting her. I don't think she would have met the threshold for danger to herself or others though. Even if one showed her posts, one could easily suggest that putting anyone in a polyamorous situation will provoke feelings of competitiveness and resentment. We live in a mononormative world where it seems to make sense that one would be driven to feelings of rage and violence by the prospect of romantic or sexual competition.

I wonder if things could have ever went differently for her.
 
I thought I'd write a name post which I link to in my signature. I hate all those names in a signature. It feels like each post is being seconded by the partners and metamours of members.

Ivy - very close friend (US), psychiatrist and "poly friendly" therapist. She practices solo poly.

Rose - local Partner of 2+ years,
Thorn - nesting partner of Rose, he is immunocompromised. We are quite close friends.

Leafy - local ex partner and close friend.

Oak - LD FWB of 8 years (N America). Very close friends.
Willow- FWB and nesting partner of Oak

Jules - Nesting partner.
Ollie - Jules' slave boy (lives with us about half the year)
Jamie - Jules local partner
 
Shrimp saganaki and green bean stew. Whole salmon. Salad. Bread. Easter this year is as Greek as my Granny. Well if that were really the case, we wouldn't be celebrating for another week.

Jamie was happy as he came by to collect some food for him and his roommate.

I am so tired. I'm a little worried about how things exhaust me these days. Things like cooking a big feast takes it out of me for days.
 

JaneQSmythe

Active member
Question.

You posted on Bluebird's blog:

I think the big difference here is that the hinge partner, Bluebird, doesn't work so none of the house is hers to share with her partners. You're saying that Darkknight should put up the money and give his metamour equal equity in the house he has bought. That would be completely insane. And let's look at it from Darkknight's POV, this will not be the last guy who moves in and contributes to expenses. Are they all going to get equity in the house?

It seems to me that you have commented several times about how Bluebird "doesn't work" in her thread and it leads me to believe that you may think that "having an income" is the only material way to contribute to a relationship/family/household? In my way of thinking "work" =/= "effort that you are paid for" but more like "outcome accomplished".

There are calculators out there to estimate the "value" of a SAH spouse - it terms of childcare, lawncare, cleaning services, shopping services, petsitting services, laundry services, etc. But it does seem to me that no one outside the relationships has any right to judge how people inside the relationships value the "work" done by an individual member.

I am likely biased - I am the only member of our household that works outside the home for income. Does that mean that the boys have no say in anything because I pay the bills?! That they have no stake in how the household runs?! These are things that are negotiated within a relationship. 20 years ago MrS worked minimum wage jobs while I was training to have the career I have today. For 10 years Dude has kept our vehicles running and our household fed. These acts have value even if they aren't bringing home paychecks.

You seem to be really focused on (almost offended by) the fact that Bluebird doesn't have a "job" when, in my estimation, she works as hard as anyone else in her family.
 
You posted on Bluebird's blog:



It seems to me that you have commented several times about how Bluebird "doesn't work" in her thread and it leads me to believe that you may think that "having an income" is the only material way to contribute to a relationship/family/household? In my way of thinking "work" =/= "effort that you are paid for" but more like "outcome accomplished".

There are calculators out there to estimate the "value" of a SAH spouse - it terms of childcare, lawncare, cleaning services, shopping services, petsitting services, laundry services, etc. But it does seem to me that no one outside the relationships has any right to judge how people inside the relationships value the "work" done by an individual member.

I am likely biased - I am the only member of our household that works outside the home for income. Does that mean that the boys have no say in anything because I pay the bills?! That they have no stake in how the household runs?! These are things that are negotiated within a relationship. 20 years ago MrS worked minimum wage jobs while I was training to have the career I have today. For 10 years Dude has kept our vehicles running and our household fed. These acts have value even if they aren't bringing home paychecks.

You seem to be really focused on (almost offended by) the fact that Bluebird doesn't have a "job" when, in my estimation, she works as hard as anyone else in her family.

Since you're on my blog, perhaps I can speak more freely.

I think a SAHP to school age children is different to an adult with grown up children who do not live at home. Plus it's the guys in that situation who seem to do a shitload of the heavy DIY. So I don't think the comparison is apt.

My main reasons for suggesting employment all this time was because:

A) it was clear PR was seriously struggling and I thought reducing financial stress would be a way for that to be less of a problem.

B) I thought that having something else to do outside the home would stop BB pushing and pushing until the relationship with PR imploded. I thought it might distract from the obsessive anxiety around him dating and make a way for both relationships to exist simultaneously.

C) I've been with a partner who relied on me financially, claimed mental health issues stopped him from working, but volunteered 60hrs a week. No exaggeration. This was at a time when finances were really bad for me and it was the cause of much stress. If I ever even hinted towards working over volunteering, he would say I lacked understanding and compassion. Don't think he tried to cut down on how much life costs at all. All of this volunteering would COST. It was extremely frustrating to feel as if insisting he contribute financially as well as in the home would send him into a mental health crisis.

D) I've been the person who assumed people were fine to it because they agreed or appeased my needs without much fight. It turned out I was bordering on abusive. I do know now that I can't have partners who ALREADY have a tendency to hide their feelings. People pleasers. But I've had to work on myself to not dominate people into just going with what I say. I was horrified by how many things people concealed from me.




In their specific situation, WH was suggesting that PR should have equal equity in the house presumably because BB and DK are legally married so his house is community property. I actually have no idea if they are legally married but still it seemed like WH believed that BB owns part of the house with DK and she should be free to share that with her live in partner.

I can understand in SOME situations where people would make an educated choice to share their assets that way but trust would have to be high. In fact, that's probably a discussion that I'll have with Jules about Ollie at some point as we both own the house and he puts in something when he's here. But that's because ultimately, I can 100% trust Jules' judgement when it comes to partners. I mean, she would not break up with a spouse-like partner one week and move someone who is practically a stranger the next week during this crazy time especially, and with a vulnerable woman in the home. That's just not conducive with the kind of trust which would let me allow my partner to decide who to share my money with. Call me Scrooge but...

Similarly, she can trust that if she did get that swept away with NRE, I'd put my foot down and say she needs to go find some place they can live together. Not my home.

But my views on whether or not PK should have equity in the home through his entanglement to BB is not based on the lack of money BB has put in the house, it is about the fact that she makes these sorts of relationship choices. If she did work and put money into the home, then DK would have less say in how she shared that with partners.
 
Top