Exactly
nycindie said:
No sense in either of us twisting ourselves like a pretzel to be someone we're not, or in disregarding our own ethics just to get laid or avoid loneliness. I'd rather be alone and on my own than to fight to get someone to change, or (gasp!) to acquiesce to an insecure metamour's unrealistic demands on how I should be in my own relationships. Asking one person for permission to kiss another? No way.
if your metamour has rules that don't allow you to show each other basic affection, like kissing, of course your potential BF/GF and their other significant other are not likely going to be able to have healthy poly relationships.
Not that it couldn't be done, but it would likely take a whole lot of patience and understanding, tons of effort to make sure everyone feels loved and secure. But that is more a family style relationship and less independent or anarchistic.
What is happening here, if bofish takes the advice of: "what they do isn't any of your concern" -- which is very independent/anarchistic framed thought -- there is absolutely no way this relationship is going to be healthy.
they already have way too different ideas in regards to what is acceptable and what is not. If they are going to live a more independent styled anarchist relationship, her husband cannot pussy foot around, if she says she isn't OK with sex parties, he cannot pout and say "well...OK, I guess" and then go anyway.
There is no such excuse as "unrealistic" boundaries in independent/anarchistic styled relationships, because for them to have even a prayer of working out you need to be
very aware of your boundaries. As in you can't miss them, as in when a potential partner begins to even mention or approach the idea that she couldn't maintain a relationship with a person who goes to sex parties, the independent knows to be firm and clear, "I cannot do that, you need to understand that I will do that, I go to sex parties,etc..."
because if he cannot do that, he will never be able to be responsible enough for himself or his words. And to be honest, if he let someone set a boundary he wasn't going to keep, he doesn't need anarchist independent relationship advice, that would be deleterious, he needs training wheels on his bike, not riding a motorcycle.
In order to "have no rules" or "no restrictions" such as the type of advice Franklin Veaux touts, there is no room for ambiguity. It begins to enter the realm of abusive when you have one partner who is attempting to discuss boundaries and define their relationship, if she says I cannot be with a person who attendends sex parties, if a spouse isn't sure, then it's he who needs to make up his mind and take responsibility for his actions and desires.
It's either "yes" I am going to go to sex parties -- just so you know -- and he might not mean tomorrow but still, it's either yes or "no I don't attend sex parties"
but it's one or the other if your partner needs that boundary unless she decides it is no longer an issue
She is trying to set boundaries, and if an anarchist refuses, it is not going to work.
like you, a self professed independent, there is a world of difference between the boundary of no kissing and the boundary of no heroin use
There is a fine line between "no rules" and "no restrictions" when they are meant to not allow abusive levels of control, the other side of that line is when the anarchist refuses to give any definition to boundaries, or worse, agrees and then uses the piss poor excuse of "I agreed to an unrealistic boundary"
because he doesn't need another circle A sticker on his notebook, frankly he needs training wheels.
All of US know without any doubt there are many relationships styles that would
never ever work for US personally, probably more that wouldn't work than would.
And being able to be an adult about what those boundaries are, with no ambiguity -- when and where your partner needs clarity -- is necessary because you are right, if a partner's SO had a rule that you had to ask permission from anyone other than your partner , to kiss your partner, it wouldn't work for anybody.
luckily, that isn't her boundary, and she didn't have a problem communicating her boundary, well accept that many who replied here would not let her have that boundary
which is fine, they aren't her two people in question. And if they there are, bofish has been pretty clear, so if either her SO and his GF have chimed in here, I would say they didn't let her state her boundary, they poked and proded, manipulated and provoked her into moving them.
If they cared, they would ask what the problem is, if it is just the heroin, I bet she wouldn't protest if the parties were heroin free, or meth free, or whatever drug she doesn't approve of.
Maybe she just doesn't want her partner going to parties where there are any drugs, which if that is the case, it is cut and dry, he needs to say he is willing to abstain from such parties or not. Plenty of sober people will don't go to parties that will have drugs and alcohol,
but whatever the barrier is, is seems deleterious to pretend it's something that everyone knows it is not
for instance I am a Hetero male, and I don't expect anyone to start a family with a hetero male if they are gay. I don't expect anyone to share their life with anyone for any reason other than they don't want to.
But I will never choose to share my life anyone who refuses to grant the same rights benefits and privileges to all committed families and not just one man one woman hetero parents. Sure they could just vote against rights and ban the unions or marriages, but that is a frame of mind that I am fundamental not compatible with, so I know the relationship would never work. It might drive me crazy trying to figure out why if it wasn't spoken, but in general non-compatible people cannot have healthy relationships, so it is best for everyone involved to not begin them if that's the case
and yes family styled dynamic with agreement as to exactly where those boundaries are, tend to work better for people who may be struggling slightly.
but if a person is struggling, far better to have rules and guidelines than to be a anarchist, because an anarchist who is struggling without clear boundaries, as he is cross boundaries, and that begins to be abusive in the case where a partner is asking for clarity and they refuse to give it, it's cuts and dry when a poly gives the boundary and the anarchist cannot either agree or disagree, without all the circular ivy league sales tactics that are used to manipulate
And bofish, it really doesn't matter one way of the other, it is waffling or not deciding that causes trouble. From your history shared, you style of negotiating boundaries will not work.
It's why the Democrats had to tell Republicans you can't just sit there and talk nonsense when there is work to do, and simple yes or no or shut the fuck the up
