Ownership

[Ostrich]

Happy Monday everyone!

I'd like to have some feedback on how the good folks on this board view 'ownership' towards a partner/SO/FWB.

Some background. I sent a text to my ex-meta regarding his rough playtime with DAG. I worded it in a way which stated a rule, not a want. Basically, it was a 'please do not injure DAG when you have sex (rough paraphrase). It wasn't the intent, but my novice ass stated in a way which the meta and DAG took offense. When DAG found out about it, he read me the riot act. Stated I had no right over his body and he could do what he wanted with it. I understood, and took it to heart. NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!

Fast forward to last week. DAG made the comment about 'I am yours and you are mine'. I politely reminded him about the statement regarding 'ownership' and said 'I am not yours and you are not mine'.

He was not happy about that. He stated the 'ownership' only applied to his body, not to his emotions, or mental facilities/capacities.

I am not buying that.

I am gun shy. The whole discussion about 'ownership' really hit home. I am now loathe to make any remarks, comments or statements that even remotely imply that I have any kind of ownership of DAG, both physical and mental. He is not mine. I am not his. Period.

How do others on this board address/view 'ownership'?

Thanks!

 

[Evie]

A lot of the language around romance has ownership connotations, and it is definitely a part of the monogamous framework, especially in cultures steeped in Abrahamic religions, even for the non religious.

And not that long ago, Western married women really were effectively the property of their husbands not just culturally, but laws didn't allow married women to own real estate, have credit cards and so on.

I know we're all aware of those things, but I mention them since they still permeate the cultural millieu we have today. So many teenagers, as they are first dating, quickly embrace the ownership relationship model a la, "he's *my* boyfriend, back off you ho," and jealousy is considered a sign of love. I don't foresee this mindset going away anytime soon. Hell, even little children vie for the title of "best" friend as there is a sense that there can be only one. Often people choosing polyamory have to actively unlearn ownership ways of thinking.

You've done this, somewhat reluctantly and without being able to balance letting go of ownership and exclusivity with still maintaining an emotional intimacy. DAG seems to be trying to get your emotional intimacy back by using the romantic ownership language. You're pretty determined to not let him be that kind of romantic anymore.

But here's the thing...non monogamy and romantic ownership language can coexist. I will tell my husband that I'm his, because I am. His wife, his friend, his cohabiting life partner unless we agree otherwise. It's just a trait of English that we define so much else in relationship to ourselves. It doesn't have to be sinister or even possessive. I will also tell my partner that I'm his. We also lightly practice an ownership model grounded in kink, but that's because we specifically agreed to that.

So, while no-one literally owns or controls anyone else in my V, we still use romantic ownership language. Sometimes we use extra words to really hone in on what we're trying to convey in the moment.

You're my lover.
You're my best friend.
You're my life partner.
You're my [more specific words that have meaning to us].

But we don't treat these with notions of exclusivity.

Sometimes we do say, "I'm yours and you're mine," and like DAG, know that this is referring to an emotional bond but isn't literal or controlling. It's just the language we have available.

 

[AlwaysGrowing]

Ownership in a relationship is a very specific agreement, but the words "I'm yours, you're mine" don't necessarily mean ownership.

Boy will squeeze me and say "mine" or will put an emphasis on MY (my name) or girlfriend or whatever occasionally. We've talked about it, and he means it in a general "I'm so glad you're part of my life" kinda way. He has never tried to nor would he be able to control me/ my body/ my emotions. He's never implied or said ALL mine, which would be a big problem for me (obviously).

I would have a problem with any implication of ownership over any part of me. My emotions are mine. My body is mine.

I think as long as people are on the same page, there's no harm in the language. It is more of a "I'm yours (to love), and you're mine (to love) (even if others are involved too)" kind of thing in my relationship. Language is flexible and can mean different things to different people.

 

[GalaGirl]

I see it as three separate things given your past posts.

1) Ownership.

Nope. I am in charge of me. DH is in charge of him. Neither one of us "owns" each other. We choose to be together.

When I introduce him as "This is my husband, Scarecrow" or he goes "This is my wife, Galagirl" that is not about ownership. We say "This is our daughter, ____" but we don't "own" the children either. When I say "This is your great grandma" and point to a picture, the child doesn't own that person.

It is relational language to show who is related to who for us. That's all.

2A) When to ignore DAG's flowery language.

Fast forward to last week. DAG made the comment about 'I am yours and you are mine'. I politely reminded him about the statement regarding 'ownership' and said 'I am not yours and you are not mine'.

I mean this kindly ok? Why did you think was the reminder was even needed? Was he stepping on your toes somehow? Did he ask to be reminded?

It can't just be a random announcement because he's feeling expansive and you go "That's nice, hon" and ignore it?

You seem to really crave PRECISION language from DAG when he's just not that type of communicator/emoter.

I think sometimes you make mountains out of molehills with DAG. When it might serve you better to let more things go and relax some.

It sounds like he likes to talk in a sort of "flowery language" sometimes. I had a BF who wanted to gush stuff like that at me. "I'll love your forever!" and I'd think "We're immortal?" Or "This is my perfect relationship!" and I'd think "Really? It's nice but I don't call it perfect. You can't even take out the trash on time."

I loved him, but I am not one of those "romantic, flowery words" talking people. But I kept my thoughts to myself because I could SEE that he was feeling all pink fluffy lala cloud exuberant and expansive. Why rain on his parade? He was just expressing himself in the way he liked to do.

I'd just let that BF go on without much comment because that was his style. He liked the romantic, flowery stuff even if I didn't. I'd just go "That's nice, hon. I love you too" and let him enjoy himself. What was it hurting?

DH tells me things like "I love you!" and "You are a cutie!" and I find those easier to deal with because while affectionate, they aren't so .... flowery/gushing.

I really don't have a better phrase than "flowery language." But hopefully you get what I mean. I greatly dislike things like romance novels that have too much of that flowery stuff in there. At the same time, I get that other people are big fans of that kind of thing. So... Maybe when he's in a flowery talking mood? You could learn to let some stuff slide because it's not worth getting into an argument like making a tempest in a teapot. "That's nice, hon" is neutral enough and maybe you'd rather conserve the energy.

Last time there was flowery talk, it was about the comment about wanting to be together ALL the time and how even DAG doesn't think that is realistic, but says it anyway and it was confusing you. I think this is like that.

I think maybe you take it too literally.

Yes, and he's reminded me of that. It's still confusing to me, even with the Lens of the Metaphoric. I think it would help if I also unfocused on that.

It may be helpful if you don't overfocus on the flowery talk -- any of it.

2B) When to hold DAG accountable.

Other times, when he's talking all flowery, and it is a situation that IS more serious, then you DO hold him accountable and DO NOT let things slide. You DO bring things back down to earth because life cannot aways be "up in the lala clouds."

Can you tell the difference between situations that would be 2A things and 2B things?

He was not happy about that. He stated the 'ownership' only applied to his body, not to his emotions, or mental facilities/capacities.

What is "that" in this sentence? That he wanted to be all pink fluffy lala clouds talking and here you came with an unasked for reminder like a cold splash of water? Or something else? Could you please be willing to clarify?

I can accept that DAG thinks that way.

But I do not agree. I think every person is responsible for their own behavior choices and their own emotional management. Along with how they want to/or don't want to grow in their mental facilities/capacities.

And I still wouldn't say anything over it in the moment. Because at this point this is still "random announcements" and not like anything real or concrete that needs doing right now.

I suppose that is my eldercare mode kicking in. I just can't be getting excited about every little thing that comes out of one of my dementia elders mouths because I'd be all stressy all the time.

So I suggest to you the same thing I tell my mom. Get excited when it is time to get excited because something REAL is happening or needs tending to.

The rest of the time? "Mmm-hmmmm. That's nice, hon" if they are having fun doing whatever it is.

3) Enmeshment

I think it's great that you have been working on yourself and doing your counseling.

You and DAG sounded like a really enmeshed couple to me at the start.

At some point I think you could stop viewing your relationship with some kind of scorecard/checkbox thing. Stop worrying. Not walk on eggshells.

You get to a point where you just BE. Like you just ARE together. Authentic you living with authentic him.
Not constantly "working on this or that" right?

You just had your 5th anniversary. To me that marks gravitas in a relationship. NRE is over. So's the 4 year itch thing. If this is gonna be longer haul, it's just gonna right? And if this has just been too much work and PITA, people let it go rather than keep doing same old song different day banging head on walls, right?

I get that at the height of the Bruiser/Fisticuffs thing, putting up walls and getting stern, defensive, and maybe hyper vigilant, going numb/distant was maybe how you were trying to cope. But one cannot live life in "disaster mode" all the time. Hopefully the continued counseling helps you get back to "normal life" again.

Lately in your blog thread is sounds pretty nice. How about giving yourself permission to enjoy that?

It's almost like you don't want to let yourself trust or enjoy this period of things going ok.

So you are finding things to pick at. Is that true?

I am gun shy. The whole discussion about 'ownership' really hit home. I am now loathe to make any remarks, comments or statements that even remotely imply that I have any kind of ownership of DAG, both physical and mental. He is not mine. I am not his. Period.

So don't make them. Keep life easier on you.

But I encourage you to try to let more things just "go on by." DAG is who he is, warts and all. And if you still want to be here with him? It's ok for you to have changed and not be so caught up in all his stuff, have better personal boundaries, and hold the line WHEN IT MATTERS.

But the rest of the time? It's ok to cut both of you a break.

Not every thing requires deep analysis.

If it isn't harming anything? Maybe let him do his flowery talk however it is he talks without reminders or comments about it from you.

Galagirl

 

[Magdlyn]

This is an interesting conversation about romantic declarations and the flowering of closeness and intimacy between 2 souls.

I agree that some people are more romantic and passionate than others. People in many cultures, both male and female, are taught to suppress/repress emotions, while in other cultures, emotions are right at the surface and expressed freely.

Our emotions are not always congruent with harsh reality. But expressing warm feelings, however unrealistic they may be, does, in my opinion help us to soften harsh edges, feel love, feel loved, and make it through one more night.

I think I fall in the middle of the spectrum. I'm older, I've lived, I've been cheated upon, ghosted, dumped and abused. I'm jaded, but I haven't given up. I still want to feel close to my lovers, feel the trust between us and melt into their arms.

My new bf is younger, more naive and idealistic than me. So when he says he wishes he could wake up next to me every morning, or when he assures me he will love me forever, I just find it sweet and cute and adorable. We do also grab each other by the genitals and say, "Mine." Because right at that moment, they do belong to the other person, to be filled or embraced and pleasured. But we are both huge nerds and into literature and movies and all that romance and passion stuff.

 

[MeeraReed]

I'm glad to see that things have been looking better on your blog/in your life, Ostrich.

But I'll be honest. I don't think your question is about ownership in general. I think you are still trying to punish DAG emotionally.

Your attitude reminds me of recurring issues I've had with my aunt. She is a thoughtful, well-intentioned lady to who tries her best, and I love her dearly. But she has trouble giving up control, respecting boundaries, and changing her perspectives.

When I was working my first adult job, she gave me a lot of unsolicited, unwelcome advice that was often not relevant to my situation/career. It felt like she was interfering, overstepping her boundaries, and not respecting that I was an adult who knew what I was doing with my own life. After a lot of gently trying to talk to her about it, to no avail, I finally blew up at her and let her know that when I said X and she responded with Y, that was unacceptable and she had to start treating me like an independent adult. She was very hurt but seemed to get it...

...Until some months later, I mentioned something about work and she made a little dismissive comment like she wasn't interested. I was like, what do you mean by that? She said very coldly, "Well, I can't say my real opinion because I thought I wasn't allowed to have an OPINION about your work because you're an ADULT, remember?"

So, she was still mad about the boundary I had set earlier. And she had never reflected on her behavior or changed her perspective based on what I had expressed to her. She was never going to consider, "Meera is right, I don't treat her like an adult, I will try to change that." Nope. She was just going to be passive aggressive about it forever. She was going to hold me to the "letter" of my request forever, while never internalizing the "spirit" of my request.

I have long since accepted that that's just how my aunt is. She won't seek therapy, so she's not going to change. I only give her small doses of info about my life. We aren't as close as she'd like us to be.

You, however, are clearly seeking to change your patterns and improve your relationship with DAG. You recognize that you can be passive aggressive at times.

It sounds like you haven't actually internalized what it means to have a romantic relationship that allows for autonomy/lack of ownership, but that is nonetheless still close, loving, and intimate. You accepted DAG's request for autonomy by shutting down emotionally. You still don't believe you can have both--emotional intimacy and autonomy.

When you harp on DAG for using romantic ownership language to express his love, you are still trying to punish him for requesting sexual autonomy.

It is understandable that you were upset to see sexual bruises/marks on DAG's body when he first explored sex with others. That is often a common reaction for the more monogamous partner in ethical non-monogamy. My partner Eli, for example, had one of his other partners break up with him because her primary partner did not like the marks Eli was leaving on her body.

It would have been okay to express your upset feelings about the marks to DAG and to admit you can't handle non-monogamy if it leaves physical marks on him. But the issue was that you contacted your metamour about the marks, bypassing DAG's agency and asserting your territorial right as "owner" of his body. I can see why both DAG and the metamour were mad. You interfered in their sex life/relationship, and treated DAG like he was your property.

I know you recognize that text was your newbie mistake. And I think that's okay. Give yourself some grace.

But given your response to DAG's romantic commments all this time later...I think you still don't quite get it. You have decided to honor the letter of the law of autonomy, but not its spirit.

Other commenters have given good examples of the difference between the sentiments of romance and the reality of non-ownership. I don't personally like ownership-language in romance, but I enjoy some power-exchange kink play with an ownership dynamic, in bed only. Outside of bed, I am autonomous. I am free to have other connections outside of my partner--sexual, romantic, whatever. He doesn't own me. But sometimes the language or pretense of ownership can be sexy (or for some people, romantic). I don't find a contradiction in those things.

I think you should try harder to understand how emotional romantic connection can coexist with autonomy.

 

[kdt26417]

Hi Ostrich,

It seems to me that a statement such as, "You're my husband," does not have to imply ownership, it can simply imply association. However, the two-word sentence, "You're mine," always denotes ownership. In the narrative you posted, DAG was using the latter wording and as such, was definitely stating ownership. "I own you, and you own me. I'm yours, and you're mine." The only question remaining is, is this consensual ownership? We know that in the BDSM world, there can be such a thing as consensual ownership, such as when a Master "owns" a slave. The same can be true in a (relatively) vanilla relationship, *if* the would-be owned party agrees to be owned (by the owning party). Without true consent, there can be no true ownership. Thus, if it's only seeming consent and is actually the product of brainwashing, then the ownership is a sham.

There remains the question of, "What rights does an owner have? What rights does their 'property' have?" DAG seems to be aiming in two contradictory directions. He is "yours" when he wants to be smooth and romantic; he is *not* yours (he is strictly his own) when he wants to play rough with your ex-meta, when he *wants* to be injured, and you would rather that not happen to him. The questions for you to ask, then, are ...

• Do you consent to being owned by DAG?
• Does DAG consent to being owned by you?
• What conditions of "ownership" do you consent to?
• What conditions of "ownership" does DAG consent to?
• Do these conditions line up (between you two)?
• Does ownership itself line up (between you two)?
• Do you have the right to tell your ex-meta to not play rough with DAG?
• Does your ownership of DAG extend that far?
• Does DAG consent to that much ownership?
• Do you consent to a marriage in which DAG has that much freedom? the "freedom to play rough?"

If DAG insists on having a certain freedom that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps that proves that you don't own him. And maybe you wish that he would acknowledge that.

Just some thoughts,
Kevin T.

 

[Marcus]

I am gun shy.

I don't know anything about your relationships, but what I'm reading here tells me that I'd be gun shy as well. You guys don't seem to have an exactly understanding pattern of communication and are instead doing things like "reading the riot act".

Healthy communication involves, at the very least, everyone involved giving everyone else the benefit of the doubt, and responding very constructively when we get news we weren't hoping for. If someone "reads me the riot act" about something I said, there is a huge issue in that association and it has nothing to do with what I said or didn't say.

Personally I'd take a look at how you two are communicating with each other and take that very seriously.

The whole discussion about 'ownership' really hit home. I am now loathe to make any remarks, comments or statements that even remotely imply that I have any kind of ownership of DAG, both physical and mental. He is not mine. I am not his. Period.

I'm not interested in people telling me what to do or involving themselves in business that isn't directly theirs. I get not wanting to use language that implies ownership because I personally find it to be cringe at best, and indicative of an unspoken problem or expectation at worst.

What we say and how we say things is a reflection of what we actually feel and what is going on with us. Someone can say "nah, that didn't mean anything" about a statement like "I am yours and you are mine", but that isn't generally how we work. They had a thought, and they said it out loud, thus communicating their feeling. If it's just irony I get that, but you guys don't sound like you have a functional communication groundwork that supports something like sarcasm. In your case I think I'd just stick to speaking plainly and don't fuss around with language lest you get "read the riot act" again.

 

[Ostrich]

Evie and AG, thank you for your perspectives. I am very literal, so I am sure this is one of those times where I'm putting everything which refers to 'ownership' into one box. One definition doesn't necessarily fit all. But it really hits home when DAG tells me 'you're mine'. Dude, no I'm not. I guess I need to work on my literal/theoretical balance.

GG:

I mean this kindly ok? Why did you think was the reminder was even needed? Was he stepping on your toes somehow? Did he ask to be reminded?

Because we hadn't discussed 'ownership' since 'The Rule' was made. At that time, the discussion centered only on ownership of body, not as a reference to what who/what we are in each other's life (other than husband). No, he didn't ask to be reminded. I felt I needed to remind him of what he said to me about body 'ownership'. DAG's utterance of 'you're mine' triggered me. In hindsight, I should have asked him about what he meant by 'mine'.

You seem to really crave PRECISION language from DAG when he's just not that type of communicator/emoter.

OK, this gets to the heart of my verbal communication style. I can be rather vague and not all that precise or descriptive in my verbal language. I can include two or three words in my verbal communications which can skew my intended meaning. DAG may, or may not, come back to me for clarification. If I sense he misunderstands me, I will rephrase my verbal in an attempt to be understood. I get very frustrated with translating my thoughts into verbal communications and it shows.

DAG is far more precise in his verbal communications than I am. So I am used to getting that from him. He can rationalize anything he does and make it sound like he came to a logical conclusion, or that his actions were logical. There's a story about him and his phone ('it was with me, but it wasn't on me'. Fucker). So when he came to me with 'ownership', I took it to mean most forms of 'ownership' Sometimes intense discussions leave a mental mark.

Also, it took me a little over an hour to type and edit this post, just so I am comfortable with what I am trying to convey. I know I'm probably not clear, even with all the editing.

You and DAG sounded like a really enmeshed couple to me at the start.

I've gotten that from others on this board. I think I've posted about this topic on my thread. Maybe I need to write a post specific to this topic. Short answer: The only good thing about the B and FC era was the fact he spent a significant amount of time with them and I took advantage of that by doing what I wanted. Skyrim and eating Cheetos on the couch? Fuckin A! He wasn't around to bitch about it. When he says 'I want us to be with each other all the time' I roll my eyes, because if that were true, he wouldn't have needed B and FC. And there I go being literal again.

So don't make them. Keep life easier on you. But I encourage you to try to let more things just "go on by." DAG is who he is, warts and all. And if you still want to be here with him? It's ok for you to have changed and not be so caught up in all his stuff, have better personal boundaries, and hold the line WHEN IT MATTERS.

Sometimes my thoughts need a voice. If I keep them in, they have a habit of growing and fester and can sometimes turn into something negative/ugly. Through all this therapy, I have learned to not keep everything in. I thought I was making life easier by keeping things in me, only for me to emotionally explode later. Now he knows what I am thinking. It's also a great conversation starter. Maybe it's time to work on self-editing. To your WHEN IT MATTERS point, he now knows what 'No' means.

Mags:

My new bf is younger, more naive and idealistic than me. So when he says he wishes he could wake up next to me every morning, or when he assures me he will love me forever, I just find it sweet and cute and adorable. We do also grab each other by the genitals and say, "Mine." Because right at that moment, they do belong to the other person, to be filled or embraced and pleasured. But we are both huge nerds and into literature and movies and all that romance and passion stuff.

Do you enjoy it when he says and does things like that? The first couple of sentences sound like DAG. Except I don't find it sweet and cute. I've had similar experiences like you where I've been dumped and ghosted, so I'm more than a little skeptical when someone says that to me. Yes, DAG is not the others, so I've got to be a little more flexible in my belief system. Not everyone is an asshole.

LOL, I can't even look at DAGs dick without thinking 'NOT MINE'.

Meera:

I think you are still trying to punish DAG emotionally.

There is A LOT to unpack here. It never occured to me that I could be punishing DAG in this particular instance. I said what I said out of an abundance of caution to ensure he knows how I think about ownership now. 'You said this about 'ownership', now you see I've taken that to heart'. He's given his view on what he means by 'you're mine', but I'm not convinced. I'm not doing a good job in describing how intense the original 'ownership' discussion played out. It wasn't a yelling match, but with how he said it, you would have thought I killed his mom, kicked the dogs and drank all of his protein powder. This is an interesting take and I'll think about it more.

It is understandable that you were upset to see sexual bruises/marks on DAG's body when he first explored sex with others. That is often a common reaction for the more monogamous partner in ethical non-monogamy. My partner Eli, for example, had one of his other partners break up with him because her primary partner did not like the marks Eli was leaving on her body.

Actually, there were never any bruises on DAG from sex with...Bruiser. I was predicting there would be bruises as in my experience with rough sex, there are usually some marks made. In this case, none were ever made. You can find more detailed info about 'The Rule' here. Enjoy!!

Kevin!!! Always good to see you!

• Do you consent to being owned by DAG?
• Does DAG consent to being owned by you?
• What conditions of "ownership" do you consent to?
• What conditions of "ownership" does DAG consent to?

I can only answer these fully for myself. For DAG, all I know is I cannot 'own' his physical body. For me, these four are confined to sex play and even then, I feel really uncomfortable in using ownership language. Again, I cannot express how intense 'The Rule' discussion was and how deeply it impacted my thinking regarding 'ownership' language.

Marcus,

I don't know anything about your relationships, but what I'm reading here tells me that I'd be gun shy as well. You guys don't seem to have an exactly understanding pattern of communication and are instead doing things like "reading the riot act".

If you're up for some light reading, you can check out my blog here. I've done my best to be as brutally honest as possible. Feel free to post any questions you may have about my posts, on my blog. Happy Motoring!

 

[Magdlyn]

My new bf is younger, more naive and idealistic than me. So when he says he wishes he could wake up next to me every morning, or when he assures me he will love me forever, I just find it sweet and cute and adorable. We do also grab each other by the genitals and say, "Mine." Because right at that moment, they do belong to the other person, to be filled or embraced and pleasured. But we are both huge nerds and into literature and movies and all that romance and passion stuff.

Do you enjoy it when he says and does things like that? The first couple of sentences sound like DAG. Except I don't find it sweet and cute. I've had similar experiences like you where I've been dumped and ghosted, so I'm more than a little skeptical when someone says that to me. Yes, DAG is not the others, so I've got to be a little more flexible in my belief system. Not everyone is an asshole.

Yeah, in the book Opening Up, they talk about how it's fine to learn from experience, but at the same time, not fair to put someone else's (an ex's, or even a friend or parent's) behaviors directly onto a new person. I do use my experiences with dating a couple of narcissists to look for those kinds of red flags in new relationships, of course. But not everyone is a narc!

I admit it did take me aback the first few times he said things like this. In the 13 years I've been living poly, he's the first guy who has seemed to be this enamored of me. (Pixi, my nesting partner, was also immediately into me, but didn't express her feelings so intensely right away.) So, I do try to take things he says with a grain of salt. He told me upfront before we even met that he's been told he's "too intense" by some. And I know he's an Aries, and they tend to go "ready, fire, aim!" jumping into situations headfirst. So this all helps to get where he's coming from.

He knows he can't literally wake up next to me every day. He lives with his brother and I live with Pixi. I take it to mean he loves waking up next to me very much.

And as for loving me forever, I think he really does mean it! I've asked him when we are feeling less horny and more sober though (not smoking weed, not drunk on sex), and he still says he means it. However, I am going to wait and see how things go. I'm not making those kinds of declarations on my end, and he's OK with that.

LOL, I can't even look at DAGs dick without thinking 'NOT MINE'.

*hugs

Maybe because I am drawn to the world of BDSM, I'm more used to this kind of thing. Domly dom types like to grab a body part and say "Mine." If it turns them on, and thereby I get more pleasure, I am fine with it. I just don't take it literally. I do not desire to be a slave and actually owned by a Master. I've never met someone whom I trusted with my life like that. And I'm a huge-ass feminist, so there's that.

I appreciate that you took an hour of your time to respond to everyone. It can be hard to talk off the cuff.

One thing: if you express something important to DAG, maybe you want to have him repeat back when he heard, not just if you fear he didn't understand, but as a general rule. This is part of Non-Violent Communication:

You talk
You ask other person to repeat back what they heard
You then correct their misperceptions calmly
Then they talk
You repeat back when you heard
They correct your misperceptions calmly

 

[kdt26417]

Hi Ostrich,

I take it you do consent to being "owned" in the sex play area, but that you do not like/consent to the use of ownership language. DAG on the other hand has made it abundantly clear that he does not consent to you owning his body. It sounds like, verbally, he dealt with you extremely harshly during "The Rule Discussion," which I am guessing is when he "read you the riot act," as per your first post here. If I am getting anything wrong in this paragraph, please do correct me.

I am thinking that you are probably still feeling rather hurt from the Rule Discussion, and maybe it seems like DAG is taking that hurt rather lightly when he subsequently coos about you and him owning each other. Like, "Dude, you made it very clear that I do not own you. Now you are romancing me with talk about owning you? Not considerate. Not consistent. Not fair."

Just some thoughts,
Kevin T.

 

[GalaGirl]

OK, this gets to the heart of my verbal communication style. I can be rather vague and not all that precise or descriptive in my verbal language. I can include two or three words in my verbal communications which can skew my intended meaning. DAG may, or may not, come back to me for clarification. If I sense he misunderstands me, I will rephrase my verbal in an attempt to be understood. I get very frustrated with translating my thoughts into verbal communications and it shows.

Ok, so if the concern is misunderstandings? How about making it a habit to say "Ok, could you please repeat what I just said in your words so I know you got it how I meant it?

DAG is far more precise in his verbal communications than I am. So I am used to getting that from him.

Well, if you are used to him being precise, and now he's all into flowery talk and that is confusing you?

You have choices for how to respond.

• Identify it as "flowery talk" that you can just let go on by without discussion because it is not esp important. A 2A thing. (Ex: I want to be with you all the time!" ( You say "That's nice, hon" while thinking "Ok, whatever dude, You are off in flower talk land.".)
  
  
• Or speak up because you identify it as something important. A 2B thing. (Ex:" I don't like any ownership talk. Even for romantic, flowery talk. I'd rather hear "You are the greatest guy in the whole world" rather than "You are mine!" Could you please be willing to do that? " )
  
  
• Or ask for clarification if you are confused as to what this is supposed to be.

He can rationalize anything he does and make it sound like he came to a logical conclusion, or that his actions were logical.

I don't know what all that means over there.

But I know people who do "logical after the fact" to rationalize poor choices or poor behavior. I don't care for that.

I said what I said out of an abundance of caution to ensure he knows how I think about ownership now.

That's what I mean. When do you get to put your guard down in your 5 year marriage? And STOP with the "abundance of caution" and just BE? Not be double checking?

What needs to happen so you can feel safer in this relationship?

'You said this about 'ownership', now you see I've taken that to heart'. He's given his view on what he means by 'you're mine', but I'm not convinced.

So be ok not being convinced at this time.

Do what YOU want to be doing. You do not care to make any remarks, comments or statements that even remotely imply that you have any kind of ownership of DAG, both physical and mental. So don't SAY any.

If you decide you also don't want to HEAR any new remarks from DAG about anything "ownership" even if "just" flowery talk?

Is that the missing part? If so...

You could ask if he could please be willing to stop making such remarks around you. If he does? Great.

If he doesn't? You have a personal boundary that you don't want to hear that talk. You simply enforce it.

You could say "No, thanks. I'm not into ownership talk" and then you leave the room. Then you don't have to hear it.

I'm not doing a good job in describing how intense the original 'ownership' discussion played out. It wasn't a yelling match, but with how he said it, you would have thought I killed his mom, kicked the dogs and drank all of his protein powder.

I understand it was a super triggery thing. It deeply impacted you. You do fine explaining that.

But if the missing part is actually asking DAG not to talk in any "ownership" way around you? Ask him to stop then.

What's the hold up?

Because we hadn't discussed 'ownership' since 'The Rule' was made.

You know YOU get to have some personal boundaries too?

It's not just DAG who gets to set personal boundaries about what he will and will not put up with?

You can decide what you will and will not put up with also.

This is an interesting take and I'll think about it more.

Marriage (for me) is a give and take.

Some things are important to bring up and have personal boundaries around. Some stuff? I just indulge my spouse because he indulges me.

Does he REALLY want to hear about my "baking" TV shows? He listens politely and will even watch some with me but that's not his groove. He likes WWII model airplanes. Do I care about planes? Nope, but I'm willing to listen to his interests because I like HIM. It's 2A "That's nice, hon!" on both sides.

If either of us blew the mortgage payment on hobby baking or hobby planes? That's a problem, not something to just let go on by. That would lead to a 2B type discussion.

So if it is a 2A flower talk situation like above you can just let go on by? LET IT GO BY.

If it is a 2B flower talk situation that bothers you? SPEAK UP, make him aware of your personal boundaries around that, then enforce your personal boundaries.

Again... are you able to tell the difference between a 2A thing and a 2B thing?

Or you can tell... but maybe have trouble asserting yourself and enforcing your personal boundaries around DAG? Because he can logic/rationalize his way out of anything?

Through all this therapy, I have learned to not keep everything in. I thought I was making life easier by keeping things in me, only for me to emotionally explode later.

Glad you stopped gunny sacking.

Now he knows what I am thinking. It's also a great conversation starter.

Good. You are communicating more.

Maybe it's time to work on self-editing. To your WHEN IT MATTERS point, he now knows what 'No' means.

You sounds like you are trying to find the "just right" place for "right amount of communication."

No more gunny sacking, but also not overthinking everything from "abundance of caution."

Along with HOW you communicate by reading Non-Violent Communication books.

Galagirl

 

[Ostrich]

GG!

So if it is a 2A flower talk situation like above you can just let go on by? LET IT GO BY.

If it is a 2B flower talk situation that bothers you? SPEAK UP, make him aware of your personal boundaries around that, then enforce your personal boundaries.

I understand the differences in the scenarios. The examples you provide are clear. Now it's up to me to figure out where the line is between 2A and 2B.

Do what YOU want to be doing. You do not care to make any remarks, comments or statements that even remotely imply that you have any kind of ownership of DAG, both physical and mental. So don't SAY any.

In all seriousness, thank you for the 2x4. I will admit a certain amount of denseness on my part. It takes a good, strong not-literal strike across the back of the head for me to see sometimes. Bless you for keeping at me to see.

Mags

I appreciate that you took an hour of your time to respond to everyone. It can be hard to talk off the cuff.

And I loved every minute of it. You guys are amazing and I love the tough love.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Many moons ago I had a relationship that taught me something fundamental about myself.

It was with a woman who was in a hierarchical poly relationship (perhaps without knowing that term) with quite a few restrictions which "protected" the primary relationship and also ensured they fulfilled their practical commitments.

She was very much seeking a partner, but a partner who would abide by her unavailability. On the surface, her restrictions were not that much of a problem. It didn't stop us having something together. But what it did for me is prevent me sourcing some of what I need from a partner. I didn't feel partnered with her. She didn't even feel like one of those friends that are like family. I think in some ways the fact we were having sex stopped us from developing that level of platonic intimacy you have with a "best friend".

This caused issues around expectations, priority, and intimacy, I guess. She wanted a level of emotional availability to me that I couldn't give under those conditions which was genuinely a surprise to me.

What I learned is that to feel partnered, or owned or the owner of someone, I need a level of availability which is very subjective and individual. Some might even argue that what I need is arbitrary and inconsistent, and it is in some ways. But the heart works how the heart works.

I guess I'm saying I can see why you have an issue with this, because his language might come with a set of expectations you're unable to meet given previous discussions.

 

[MeeraReed]

Hi again Ostrich,

This is an interesting thread and you are getting lots of good advice.

Thinking about this further, I am recognizing how very deeply HURT you were by DAG's initial response to the texting "incident." You were shocked at the way that DAG blew up at you. You were shocked, and perhaps devastated & heartbroken, that DAG felt you don't "own" him.

You felt your relationship changed permanently and you have been trying to adjust to the new idea that you two don't own each other.

So, when DAG makes lovey dovey comments about you two "belonging" to each other, you are HURT. And also, you DON'T UNDERSTAND what he means.

I am capitalizing these words because I think they are the key to what you are feeling. You are hurt and you genuinely don't understand what DAG means when he says lovey dovey stuff about belonging to each other. (And your feeling this way is quite reasonable!)

But...your response to DAG (at least in the way you are communicating it here) sounds like it was: "Ha! I thought you said we don't belong to each other!"

Like, coming across as snide and defensive and dismissive. Instead of opening up a productive conversation. Instead of admitting your own vulnerability and confusion.

You could say: "DAG, when you say we belong to each other, I am hurt because it brings me back to the painful texting incident and how you reacted to it. And, I genuinely don't understand what you mean, because I thought you wanted a relationship in which we DON'T belong to each other. I've been trying my best to have that kind of relationship, but when you use romantic 'belonging' language, I just get even more confused."

People who have passive-aggressive tendencies often struggle to admit vulnerability. To admit they were hurt. To admit they don't understand something. Instead of saying, "My feelings are hurt," or asking questions to get more clarification, they will jump to "catching" someone in a contradiction, focusing on black-and-white thinking, demanding super-precise language, etc.

I think it is reasonable to ask DAG how he can justify both non-ownership in a relationship, and romantic ownership language. Can you have a productive discussion about it with him?