Not really a blog

SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
...

This is just to achieve their ethical poly standard. Less than that, you're half assing and not really poly.
Click to expand...
(^^^ The Reddit opinion. I just wanted to make sure, in case anybody singles out my post and your quote, that it's understood to be out of context.)

I do wonder if this is partly why I have also seen such high praise, or pride taken in identification of "solo-poly." Solo poly is sought after - mainly because the rule of thumb is that it gives the least amount of institutional hierarchy.

It reminds me of that other thread, where you wrote: "Then, the single poly women are often looking for a 'primary,' which ironically entails many of the same things those poly married women want, just with the addition of marriage and kids."

It's something I've discussed with my wife. In that, I want her to make sure she knows she's available for separate vacations, with others, not me, etc.

I think in the end, while it's not something I have done, (I'm still only at 1 relationship, and probably will be considering my circumstances), I have certainly given it some mental exercise. And I wonder about the financial extension I would need to make.

edit: Also, I just want to say thanks, you usually provide provocative thinking posts.
 
For reference: https://polyamory.com/threads/first-wife-looking-for-advice-and-guidance.156022/#post-497305

I had to Google in which countries traditional patriarchal polygamy is still legal. I see about 20 countries (out of the 195 countries worldwide) such as Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and so on... Africa, parts of Asia, and surprisingly, Russia.

So who are these "happy" women in polygamous marriages you know who are living in your Western country? How can they practice polygamy legally in a country where it is illegal? What are the rights of these illegal wives?

What rights do women even have in countries where they are forced into polygamous marriages? We know women are fighting for more rights world-wide. It's not a Western phenomenon. (And women/girls are completely lacking rights here in the US, in those cults I mentioned in the other thread.)

Marrying 12 year-old girls off to men older than them, girls who have no choice in the matter, does not make for a happy child. Taking a 12-year old girl out of school and getting her pregnant, while it may be "traditional," is never healthy for her still-developing body and mind.

Polygamy is only legal in a tiny fraction of countries, worldwide. This should tell us something about the value most people place on it.

I happen to know that some parents will fight against the idea of marrying their barely adolescent daughter off at that age, even if it's legal, or when it was more common hundreds of years ago.

Back when it was legal for a girl to get married, even BEFORE she'd had her first period, men, such as rabbis, debated the legalities and practicalities of it. They had complete control over whether a girl could be given/taken in marriage very young. The girl was just her father's property, chattel, a possession. Her well-being was not a concern, except as it affected her viability as a breeder. She was treated as a mare or heifer would be.

But people living in poverty may feel forced to sell their daughters into marriage, or into sex slavery. People with money give their young daughters in marriage to solidify bonds between her father and the potential husband, for social and monetary reasons. Just because it's "traditional" does not make it somehow good. It's not racist to object to this and to want something better for these girls.
 
Magdlyn said:
So who are these "happy" women in polygamous marriages you know who are living in your Western country? How can they practice polygamy legally in a country where it is illegal? What are the rights of these illegal wives?
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by words like marriage. Not everyone has legal marriages in the Western legal sense. Some people have marriages that are fully recognised as spousal partnerships within their community (what they'd refer to as their religious or traditional wedding), but not a civil ceremony that has them legally recognised as spouses.

For instance, Jules is from a Creole Caribbean background, where many of her family and community are Rastafarian. They don't have legal marriages, for the most part. Many also practice a relationship structure where the man has more than one female partner and children from those unions.

So you're right, in that they may not legally be married to several women, but they're living as the spouse and father to several female partners and their respective children.

Speaking about the people I know through Jules specifically, who either live in the Caribbean, US, or UK, in terms of protection for the female, legal marriage wouldn't really provide that. Why? Because a lot of the women are already the breadwinners, for various reasons related to wider prejudice.

The issues that a white American woman might think about, like rightfully getting half of the assets of their higher-earning husband, are obsolete. They have very little to nothing in terms of assets, maybe the tenancy of whatever social housing they have. Whether or not their ex and co-parent supports them after a break up with whatever they do have depends solely on who they picked. Being married to that man doesn't change whether or not he's a "deadbeat dad."

For a Western white woman, marriage may well form some type of legal protection and security that puts them in a higher position to anyone else. If you've got next to nothing, it doesn't do much at all.

Gtg but will be back to answer more.
 
Magdlyn said:
What rights do women even have in countries where they are forced into polygamous marriages? We know women are fighting for more rights world-wide. It's not a Western phenomenon. (And women/girls are completely lacking rights here in the US, in those cults I mentioned in the other thread.)
Click to expand...
Well, it's normative for them, in the sense that they have a different value system and may not see any benefit to being someone's only wife. You see this more in rural African cultures than say, people influenced through organised religion.
Magdlyn said:
Marrying 12 year-old girls off to men older than them, girls who have no choice in the matter, does not make for a happy child. Taking a 12-year old girl out of school and getting her pregnant, while it may be "traditional," is never healthy for her still-developing body and mind.
Click to expand...
That's a different point. The reason I raised this at all is because I was pointing out (as you are demonstrating), we live in a society where these things are forbidden, so the people who engage are automatically seen as either victims or perpetrators, or sometimes both. That limits how happy they can ever be. This is especially true if you convert to this lifestyle, rather than being raised in it, because you can lose your original support network.

If you compare that to people who live in societies where their value system promotes polygamy, they have the community support that your average Mormon in the US does not have. Not even all Mormons agree with such practices, including polygamy with consenting adults.

Whether you like it or not, you will find people in other cultures who are content, despite being what we would perceive as the "victim" of practices we perceive as abhorrent, like polygamy and child marriage. I raised the existence of those people so the OP of the other thread could think about what they share with other adults who happily live in polygamous societies where they do not have the social obstacles we have in the West, like legality.
Magdlyn said:
Polygamy is only legal in a tiny fraction of countries, worldwide. This should tell us something about the value most people place on it.
Click to expand...
Yes, because of colonisation, many countries adopted a particular Christian/Western value system which promoted monogamy and condemned non-monogamy of any description. That is embedded into their legal system, but those who do not rely on government documentation to validate their relationships (such as in some rural African communities) are not affected by such laws. They have community law.

My whole point with this is that the people who happily live this way share very little in common with the OP. It just doesn't hurt for her to come to that conclusion herself through research into where and why it does work for other women.
 
@Evie said something and it made me think about dating and compatibility:

"I actually thought those conversations went okay but apparently not."

So you go on a date, and then you decide if you like them or not based on whether you had a good time. That's the first part.

But then, even if you do like them, there's this whole other layer where you have to think about whether you really have the capacity to give it your best shot, or at the very least, what they deserve. Bearing in mind what you already have going on.

I think this happens to men quite a lot. From the outside, it can look like they just wanted sex. The woman may feel like there were no red flags and he was genuinely interested in her as a person. But then, they have sex, or somehow reach an early milestone, and he bails.

I think sometimes he thinks this is going well, maybe too well, and I don't have the capacity for how this will grow.

I don't assume this is happening in Evie's case, just that I empathise with a date going well, but still deciding not to pursue any further almost because it did go so well. It adds an intensity I'm not always in a place to introduce in my life.
 
You could look at it kinda like what's going on for Bluebird. A new guy or two are interested in her, and she likes them, but her health problems are overwhelming and she can't give them her best right now. She bit off more than she could chew, it seems to me...
 
Magdlyn said:
You could look at it kinda like what's going on for Bluebird. A new guy or two are interested in her, and she likes them, but her health problems are overwhelming and she can't give them her best right now. She bit off more than she could chew, it seems to me...
Click to expand...
Yeah. The difference from my perspective is that sometimes, I'd have probably kept seeing them if we didn't connect quite as well, as strange as that sounds.
 
Solo poly is a very specific choice.

Earlier in this blog I wrote about someone discovering that their set up wasn't working in the pandemic. It isolated them from their partners and friends.

This is along the same vein.

There's a thread in reddit at the moment where someone is upset that their married partner didn't visit them when they had covid in hospital and also that they won't allow them to rent a room in their marital home. They describe themselves as solo poly.

The thing is, choosing not to nest and to an extent, choosing not to parent, means that you're cutting yourself off from a potential support system throughout life. With the best will in the world, People won't always be able to give you the support you need without dropping their own commitments and they just can't do it.

There are other ways to support from afar, but it's never going to be the type of support a spouse can typically expect in their marital home. These practical reasons are why some people put up with the downsides of things like living with someone full time and not having the freedom with other partners in the house you may want.

Solo poly has benefits, but it also has disadvantages. You can't try and escape them by pressuring your partners to give you that kind of consistency when you'd decline an invite to properly nest.

That's not to say you can't expect any support from partners and friends. Of course you can. But not everyone is going to be able to step away from their home life to help you in yours for sustained periods.

Oh and they can't risk bringing back covid.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
Solo poly is a very specific choice.

Earlier in this blog I wrote about someone discovering that their set up wasn't working in the pandemic. It isolated them from their partners and friends.

This is along the same vein.

There's a thread in reddit at the moment where someone is upset that their married partner didn't visit them when they had covid in hospital and also that they won't allow them to rent a room in their marital home. They describe themselves as solo poly.

The thing is, choosing not to nest and to an extent, choosing not to parent, means that you're cutting yourself off from a potential support system throughout life. With the best will in the world, People won't always be able to give you the support you need without dropping their own commitments and they just can't do it.

There are other ways to support from afar, but it's never going to be the type of support a spouse can typically expect in their marital home. These practical reasons are why some people put up with the downsides of things like living with someone full time and not having the freedom with other partners in the house you may want.

Solo poly has benefits, but it also has disadvantages. You can't try and escape them by pressuring your partners to give you that kind of consistency when you'd decline an invite to properly nest.

That's not to say you can't expect any support from partners and friends. Of course you can. But not everyone is going to be able to step away from their home life to help you in yours for sustained periods.

Oh and they can't risk bringing back covid.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I don't know. The covid request is obviously unreasonable, but it seems like solo poly people are judged more harshly than other poly people.

Sure, solo people felt isolated during the pandemic...but nesting partners also felt trapped with their live-in partners!

And for your example about the room:

If a poly person can't nest with one of their partners because they already have a nesting partner, they might still want to figure out a way to build some sort of a life with the non-nesting partner (even if the non-nesting partner has a nesting partner of their own). Such as visiting frequently in their home or even having a room there. Figuring out how that would work could still be challenging and frustrating...I don't quite understand why the solo poly status is to blame.

In your example, is the solo poly person trying to figure out a way to live part-time with their married partner? Splitting their life between their solo home and their partner's home?

Does the married partner live far enough away that the solo person's visits need to be extended stays, logistically?

Would your opinion of it be different if, instead of being solo poly, the OP was a married poly woman with a live-in spouse who wanted to rent a room in her other (also married) partner's home, and was frustrated that her other partner didn't want to?

I've been appreciating your opinion on solo poly stuff lately, as a solo poly person now at a different phase of my life where I am rethinking some things.

But I don't really know that solo poly is a specific choice...my need for space and alone time isn't something I can change even if I wanted to. I don't know why that means I have to accept less love and support though.
 
I'm using solo poly to mean the choice not to live with a partner in a traditional nesting arrangement. This usually extends to other forms of traditional partnership like mixing finances, joint assets, co-parenting (though this can be achieved). It's not just a time where someone isn't nesting but would. It's a commitment not to in a similar way to being childfree. It's not just "haven't got children yet", it's "I'm going to live my life without being a parent".


MeeraReed said:
If a poly person can't nest with one of their partners because they already have a nesting partner, they might still want to figure out a way to build some sort of a life with the non-nesting partner (even if the non-nesting partner has a nesting partner of their own).
Click to expand...

Remember solo poly is meant to be a choice not to partner in these ways. Sometimes to avoid creating a hierarchical relationship structure.

MeeraReed said:
In your example, is the solo poly person trying to figure out a way to live part-time with their married partner? Splitting their life between their solo home and their partner's home?
Click to expand...

If they are, are they really solo poly? The cynic in me might think they're trying to benefit from the advantages of a marital-type home, while being able to slide away from the burdensome commitment of being part of running one.

MeeraReed said:
Would your opinion of it be different if, instead of being solo poly, the OP was a married poly woman with a live-in spouse who wanted to rent a room in her other (also married) partner's home, and was frustrated that her other partner didn't want to?
Click to expand...

Not really. I think choosing to live with a metamour is a different ask than a platonic roommate of you and your partner. I think the metamour status is probably why it isn't an option. I think people are wise to consider the pros and cons of living with a metamour and I wouldn't find it particular jarring for someone to explicitly not want to.
 
This is another post in my "How the Modern Left are fucking up the world" series.

Setting: Fetlife

A transfemme person makes a post that says that not liking dicks is transphobic. For me, this is an example of how someone has become so open-minded, their brain has fallen out. It's also a result of sites like Twitter, where you have a character limitation and have to give your hot takes without nuance.

You see, this person has ignored that a person of any gender can have a dick.
Cis men
Trans women
GQ, AG, NB people
Trans men

A genital preference on its own is not transphobic. What is transphobic is if you fail to recognise a trans woman as a woman because she has a dick. What's transphobic is excluding trans people from queer spaces and generally treating them as inferior because they are not cis.

You know, as much as trans men who were born with a vagina feel alienated by the fact that the cis gay men they are attracted to do often do not reciprocate their attraction, they only feel entitled to inclusion in gay male spaces. They don't seem to express that entitlement to sex that people who were born with penises seem to harbour.

The people most likely to decline sexual intimacy with people who have a penis are cis het men and lesbians. We seem to acknowledge that being attracted to men won't mean a woman is attracted to any and all men. And we accept that a woman might find a man sexy, but still not feel sexually compatible enough to want sex with him, due to more intimate aspects of sexual compatibility. Yet they seem to think cis het men and queer women should not have clear needs around these more intricate details.

There was a time when fighting for trans rights meant we literally fought for trans people to have equal human rights. We are still not there, yet the fight of this "younger" queer generation for trans people seems to have shifted to getting equal dating and sex opportunities, particularly for transwomen and other non-cis penis owners, as transmasc people are often left out of the conversation entirely.

I say "younger," because I mean many of these people are newly out, regardless of age. I feel like us older queers just accepted that some people aren't going to dig the way our anatomy and presentation line up. I come from being the younger one in a generation of butch cis kinky women, many of whom dated cis men in het relationships. Some were exclusively straight, but very butch. We were used to many of the men we would want to date not being attracted to us, and many of the women we didn't want to date fawning over us.

It's a subset of toxic masculinity, where we all try and ensure the penis owner is sexually fulfilled, because we dread the violence (self-inflicted or otherwise) when they do not receive that validation. So literally everyone is trying to emotionally manipulate people into giving those with dicks a fair chance of getting off.

I realise this sounds pretty Conservative coming from me, but if you read the flamewar and how adamant people are that you have to consider all genital configurations in the bedroom or you're a filthy bigot, I think you'd also agree that it is going too far. The worst thing is that it proves the Fox News Daily Mail types absolutely right.
 
Hey, are you open to discussing this or are you just venting? As a transmasc person surrounded by many other trans people in my life (older and younger, transmisogyny affected and transmisogyny exempt) I have some thoughts on the matter.
 
Thank you!

I just wanted to say that it worries me to see "penis owner" associated with toxic masculinity, I understand the frustration if this person or the discourse you are referring to really does come from entitlement, but I believe it is transmisogynistic to assert that trans women or transfems in general have this sort of attitude that you seem to be (I might be misunderstanding you) equating to male entitlement. It seems like a strawman where trans women are pressuring others to have sex with them and be attracted to their genitalia (as archetypal Men would do), whereas trans men and transmascs are more submissive and understanding (as archetypal Women would be). Anything that equates trans people, particularly trans women, to their sex assigned at birth, raises a red flag to me and runs the risk to be bioessentialist.

There are definitely transfems that may say things like this, such as the person you are referring to, but there are also many trans women that do Not have that "entitlement", and I for one have never ever met a single trans woman that has felt "entitled" to sex from people who are repulsed by penises. And I know a lot of trans women. That is not to say that trans women are incapable of harm obvs, there are trans women who abuse people, just as there are cis women, trans men and cis men who do the same.

Maybe it's because I don't live in the US so I haven't seen this discourse (although I do spend a lot of time in online trans spaces) framed in such a way. I have seen, and I spoken about with fellow trans people both online and irl, about how it sucks to have to hear how your body is disgusting and have it be justified as an orientation - this is equally painful and alienating when it comes from cis lesbians talking about how dicks are awful and Inherently Violent, or cis gay men talking about how vulvas are repulsive and "fishy". You mention transmascs are left out of the conversation, but in my experience we are present, and we don't think it's okay for guys on grindr for example to go on about how they could never ever be attracted to a trans man because of their genitalia.

About the statement in itself, i.e. "Is it transphobic to have genital preferences?" I don't particularly care, as long as people keep it to themselves and don't use it to be hurtful. Just like if someone isn't attracted to fat people, as is common, they can just say, "Sorry, I'm not into you," to the specific person, instead of going on about how fat bodies are repulsive. Most trans people I know wouldn't want to have sex with someone who doesn't find us attractive anyway, and there are plenty of people (cis, trans, gay, bi or straight) who do.

I dunno. I don't feel like I am being very articulate, but it really rubbed me wrong to read blanket statements like that about trans women, and I feel like I would be doing a disservice to my transfem sisters if I didn't speak up about it. I am sorry for this wall of text on your personal thread. I might be projecting, but transmisogyny is so rampant I really wanted to bring some nuance to this topic. I hope I kinda managed to get across what I'm trying to say. I recommend reading Julia Serano, who is far more eloquent than me, and her many writings on trans topics in general.
 
Espoir said:
Thank you!

I just wanted to say that it worries me to see "penis owner" associated with toxic masculinity, I understand the frustration if this person or the discourse you are referring to really does come from entitlement, but I believe it is transmisogynistic to assert that trans women or transfems in general have this sort of attitude that you seem to be (I might be misunderstanding you) equating to male entitlement. It seems like a strawman where trans women are pressuring others to have sex with them and be attracted to their genitalia (as archetypal Men would do), whereas trans men and transmascs are more submissive and understanding (as archetypal Women would be). Anything that equates trans people, particularly trans women, to their sex assigned at birth, raises a red flag to me and runs the risk to be bioessentialist.

There are definitely transfems that may say things like this, such as the person you are referring to, but there are also many trans women that do Not have that "entitlement", and I for one have never ever met a single trans woman that has felt "entitled" to sex from people who are repulsed by penises. And I know a lot of trans women. That is not to say that trans women are incapable of harm obvs, there are trans women who abuse people, just as there are cis women, trans men and cis men who do the same.

Maybe it's because I don't live in the US so I haven't seen this discourse (although I do spend a lot of time in online trans spaces) framed in such a way. I have seen, and I spoken about with fellow trans people both online and irl, about how it sucks to have to hear how your body is disgusting and have it be justified as an orientation - this is equally painful and alienating when it comes from cis lesbians talking about how dicks are awful and Inherently Violent, or cis gay men talking about how vulvas are repulsive and "fishy". You mention transmascs are left out of the conversation, but in my experience we are present, and we don't think it's okay for guys on grindr for example to go on about how they could never ever be attracted to a trans man because of their genitalia.

About the statement in itself, i.e. Is it transphobic to have genital preferences, I don't particularly care, as long as people keep it to themselves and don't use it to be hurtful. Just like if someone isn't attracted to fat people, as is common, they can just say "sorry I'm not into you" to the specific person, instead of going on about how fat bodies are repulsive. Most trans people I know wouldn't want to have sex with someone who doesn't find us attractive anyway, and there are plenty of people (cis, trans, gay, bi or straight) who do.

I dunno. I don't feel like I am being very articulate but it really rubbed me wrong to read blanket statements like that about trans women and I feel like I would be doing a disservice to my transfem sisters if I didn't speak up about it. I am sorry for this wall of text on your personal thread, I might be projecting but transmisogyny is so rampant I really wanted to bring some nuance to this topic. I hope I kinda managed to get across what I'm trying to say. I recommend reading Julia Serano, who is far more eloquent than me, and her many writings on trans topics in general.
Click to expand...

Okay. Let me tell you how this went down.

A transfemme (I think she might be a trans woman) wrote this post saying that not liking dicks is transphobic. A man replied saying he doesn't like dicks and then about two thirds of the trans community and their Allies on Fetlife just piled on to him ruthlessly.

So in some sense, this person was invited to comment. I get why you asked in this particular space if you could comment, but if I started this conversation in a different part of the forum, the expectation would be that I'm inviting people to freely comment. It's a forum. So it's not as if this guy was just going around telling trans people that he finds them sexually unattractive - he simply spoke about the fact he doesn't like dicks.

Now listen, this guy didn't say "I don't like dicks because I'm not gay" which would invalidate the gender identity of trans women and other non-cis genders by saying a penis makes someone a man. Nothing he said was against anything other than dicks.

The people who are presenting gender essentialism are the ones immediately insisting his dislike of dicks makes him transphobic against trans women. It isn't only trans women who have dicks. But people are so quick to react to perceived prejudice that they don't actually think through what they're saying.

Next, it was this insistence that a dislike of dicks must be rationalised. Why? If we come from the perspective that anyone can have a dick, why must anyone learn to like dicks enough to consider sex with someone who has one? They've already shown that they don't believe dick=man so why else would they need to learn to be sexually open to people with a penis?

It has to be from some belief that unless you will sexually satisfy a penis owner, you are essentially problematic. And yes, that IS what TERFs report as a major concern and it's EXACTLY why there has to be some logic brought to these arguments.

I, too, know a lot of trans people and have a complicated relationship with gender myself. I've had trans partners. I think receiving validation in your gender through sexual and romantic attention can be a path anyone easily tred, but it's not a healthy one. And it can reek of entitlement and forget the basic rules like "you're not owed attraction".

The only discourse I've seen around this on transmasc people is also ironically bio essentialist - gay men who don't like vaginas are misogynistic. That says vagina = woman. There is nothing about trans men being men and the transphobia of gay male spaces. It's about who will have sex with whom.
 
Espoir said:
I recommend reading Julia Serano, who is far more eloquent than me, and her many writings on trans topics in general.
Click to expand...

She disagrees that women should fear men. She sees the idea that women are scared of men as part of the reason so many cis women are transphobic:

"Because it’s everywhere, cultural feminism has seeped into trans politics. And if men are deemed an “oppressive” “corruptive” force, and women the “pure” yet “vulnerable” victims of male oppression, then trans people must be either one of the following three things:"

Now I agree that gendered violence is a complicated topic, but the reality is that women all over the world experience an inordinate amount of serious violence from men. When women are fearful of men, it's based in reality. Saying that we should dismiss this reality and not see men as oppressive or violent is anti-feminist.

Trans women are not men. Trans women should not need to contradict the reality of violence against women to justify their existence. The way trans women can counter accusations of male privilege and the like is by not displaying male-like entitlement to sex, or downplaying the real experiences of cis women, like men do.

The reality is that the longer you spend perceived as a male, the more you are going to have experienced male privilege. That's because the privileges that come with being perceived as male aren't things you give yourself, it's the way other people treat you that affords you superiority.

Thinking that everyone who won't be intimate with your type of body parts is a bigot is a very entitled way of viewing the world.

And finally, when this occurs on a place like a forum, the opinions are very rarely unsolicited. They're usually made as a response to someone else's post. It's again incredibly entitled to think you can come onto a forum and demand that nobody with differing opinions contributes to your post or otherwise shares their thoughts because you find them offensive and oppressive.

There's a balance there, of course: there isn't need to use dehumanising language. But if you will feel dehumanised by the fact someone doesn't like a body like yours in a sexual sense, then it's you with the skewered values.
 
Thank you for explaining further! I understand a lot more about the specific situation now that I have context, and I completely agree that it's to be expected to have people reply or comment on whatever it is one says if it's on a public forum, and generally just anywhere online, really.
 
I didn't know what to call this. The first title was "kitchen-table vs parallel vs garden-party poly."

I try to read around poly forums and speak about current topics. I'm aware that we already have compilation threads on some of this, but I think times have changed and the conversation is quite different now.

The difference in conversation has made me review some of my own opinions and articulate them in a different way, mostly because people take such extreme views that it feels like some moderation is necessary.

One example is how it seems like, at the moment, kitchen-table poly (KTP) has got a really bad reputation. For the record, I think an unexamined insistence on any approach and total inflexibility in any style is a warning sign. But it might just be that the person really knows what works for them.

However, it seems like, at the moment, an insistence on being totally parallel doesn't garner the same caution as someone who makes it clear they want kitchen-table poly.

I keep reading between the lines of these stated opinions, and it seems like it's viewed as unethical to engage in polyamory unless you have the space to create a relationship with someone new, which can be totally parallel, if they so wish. If a spouse wanted to be totally parallel, that would be seen as oppressive to the new people, who might want access to their partner's life that cannot happen with a "totally parallel" metamour significantly entangled in their life.

It does feel like the autonomy of the least-attached person/people is seen as more important than the autonomy of those in established partnerships. It's almost like what they need to pay for having couple's privileges, like the practical security that comes with (particularly nesting) partnership and marriage.

A few years ago, there definitely was more middle ground. It was accepted that some people preferred parallel poly and other preferred a more integrated kitchen-table approach. These weren't binary distinctions, and assessing compatibility came from conversation, not assumptions. Anyone who insisted on either and became hostile about it was seen as a red flag, not because of their preference, but because they seemed too insistent it was the One True Way.

Parallel insisters were seen as potentially uncomfortable with poly, and thus avoidant. KTP insisters were seen as equally uncomfortable, but a controller rather than an avoider. But for the most part, it was just seen as something you might match on, or not.

But, let's say if you were dating a married person and wanted a parallel relationship, where things like shared occasions weren't on the table. It would be assumed that you would automatically accept that you won't be having Xmas dinner with your married partner, or not actually ON Xmas Day, anyway.

If you insisted on not meeting your metamours, you'd just know that meant you'd never be going to your partner's birthday parties, unless they had no other partners attending, perhaps. Now it seems like a married person might have to consider disinviting their spouse, or otherwise going to extremes to make sure the new person got a fair chance at a full relationship that worked for them. Otherwise it starts to compromise how ethical your polyamory really can be.

I do think it's good that KTP types are being reminded that everyone has a kitchen table, and they should be open to sit at other people's tables, and not just their own. Yes, it might mean that sometimes a meal takes place at your metamour's bachelor pad, as opposed to your luxurious family home.

I think Reddit has pretty much universally decided you're not allowed to screen people based on them being favourable towards KTP. Parallel "should be" the default, apparently. Fetlifers are currently more divided, with strong opinions both ways. One user said that wanting parallel was okay because it honoured everyone's autonomy, whereas KTP diminished the autonomy of those who might not want to have that level of engagement.

It doesn't seem like dumping someone who doesn't want to ever spend time with metamours is seen as a justifiable dump, almost like an automatic veto for being anti-poly.
 
Good topic. I've not been involved in these discussions for ages but I know where I stand. I prefer being able to have some level of socialising with a metamour. At the very least because I find it absolutely abhorrent to not be able to visit the hospital or attend the funeral if the hinge gets hit by a bus tomorrow. That level of parallel is a deal breaker for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top