OK,
vanquish, anybody who has bothered to read right through this thread will be aware that I'm one of the people who most strongly criticised you. Perhaps #1. Even though your OP got me really mad, I tried to tone it down in my 2nd long comment after reading
GalaGirl's compassionate post.
You write that everybody has got the wrong end of the stick, and that we're all jumping on you. That we're angry at you just because you didn't express yourself well. That we should ask you questions instead of jumping to conclusions.
Alright, I'm willing to listen. I'm willing to give you a fair hearing. But you're going to have to make a better attempt at explaining than you have been doing. Getting all defensive and repeating various versions of "Gee, I just can't understand why all you guys are picking on me!" (AND "Gee, I have no idea why Audrey and Rachel treated me like that!") is NOT going to hack it.
You say that you do family law. I gather that you used to have a licence to practice. So, my first questions: Did you ever defend a client in court? Or prosecute? Or did you specialise in giving legal advice in an office? These questions aren't posed in order to take a poke at whatever kind of practice you had. They are to lead up to the following point:
Surely, as a formerly practicing lawyer, you must be aware of the importance of words, the importance of making yourself absolutely clear. You think that WE have been rough on you? If you ever did courtroom law with the same lack of care for expressing yourself clearly as you have employed in this thread, opposing counsel would have ripped you to shreds. Believe me, I am NOT trying to be nasty here. I am trying to be as objective as possible. You can't present a slipshod case in court and then ask the opposing counsel, jury, and judge: "Any questions? Is there any detail about my case that you have doubts on?"
If your practice was giving legal advice in an office, there is no less need to be absolutely certain that you have given the best possible advice: that your client has a PERFECT understanding of what you've been trying to get across. In this case, you CAN ask them if they have any questions. But if you express yourself badly and your client gets the wrong end of the stick, but is convinced that they did understand you, it could, in some sad cases, literally destroy their life!
2nd important point: After people (myself included) attacked you, why do you continue to sidestep the issues that we brought up? If we really didn't understand you, why haven't you tried to make us understand, instead of saying basically: "Hey, Guys, cut me some slack here!"
OK, specific questions on your story. Things you maybe just didn't explain clearly. Here's your chance to do so:
1) When Anthony was staying at the "fleabag place", and Audrey came back to your place, don't you think it might have been kinder to everyone concerned to say "I can't handle this. I'm not fit for poly. Once this visit is over, I want us to sit down and talk about our relationship, but I love you and I find that I can't share you." ?
I'm asking. Anthony doesn't sound like he's rolling in dough, either. He had to save up (your own words) to make the trip to see Audrey, and could only afford to stay in a "fleabag place".
2)
"Well she goes in to full convulsion mode and I tried to calm her down. There was some bargaining, but ultimately I stood firm" My questions: Does there need to be a
full convulsion mode for you to bargain with her? Does "bargaining" mean talking around and around a subject until she stops convulsing and you can be firm, having known from the beginning that you weren't going to give an inch? That's not my idea of bargaining. I agree: that wasn't an objective question. It grew out of my predisposition to doubt your motives and your tactics. And, if we were in court, you'd be justified in calling out, "Objection, Your Honour!" So, let me withdraw the question. Let me ask this: Was part of the bargaining: "Listen, since Anthony has been saving up for so long for this special chance to see you, why don't you guys have a nice time. But we need to talk once his visit is over"?
3) Why in your OP, do you write
"She comes back to get some clothes", and 2 hours ago, you change your story to
"I was home and she came home to spend the night during the period while the guy was visiting." It's things like this that make people doubt that you're being 100% honest.
[And I want to repeat here an idea from an earlier of my posts: I ask myself whether you're being 100% honest with yourself.]
4) Knowing that Audrey is liable to
full convulsion modes, why do you drop bombshells on her 20 minutes before you
"had to go see a client about some money and couldn't stay"??? Not very caring, it seems to me.
5) When you told her that
"I'm sorry, but this is how I feel. I can't be polyamorous any more. I can't face losing you"... weathered her
full convulsion mode... bargained, were firm, then reached a "mutual agreement" [I have to add this: I don't know how many juries would credit a "mutual agreement" following so shortly on a
full convulsion mode. Sorry, I want to be objective. But this really bugs me. Please explain clearly, so that I can understand.] to "try it for a year and see how it went being monogamous"... then "about 2 or 3 months passed"... OK, here comes my question: When all that happened, just WHO was it who asked for a return to a polyamorous basis for your relationship?
Was it Audrey, who had suffered so much from being "asked nicely" to give up Anthony? Were you being really caring, and agreeing to a style of relationship that really caused you to suffer, but you were agreeing because Audrey means that much to you? And then you found a consolation prize in Rachel?
Or was it you who asked for the one-year trial period to be cut short because you got the hots for Rachel?
I understand that you've been under stress: you've lost a relationship that really meant a lot to you. And this causes you some problems in explaining the situation as clearly as you'd like to. But your opening post
a) rather gave the impression to EVERYONE that read it that you went back to "polyamory" because you wanted to fuck Rachel, NOT because you were ceding to Audrey's wishes in the matter;
b) didn't make 100% clear whether you
i) discussed this important decision with Audrey before your
"delicious" weekend of sex with Rachel;
ii) unilaterally announced a return to "polyamory" without discussion; or
iii) didn't even bother to let her know until the deed was done.
I could spend 3 more hours asking more questions, but I'll leave it at that.
vanquish, you ask us for understanding and sympathy. You're completely baffled by our aggressive replies.
In return, I ask you to understand just why we "jumped to the conclusions" that we did. I ask you to carefully read all the comments that people have spent energy and care making -
with an open mind, not in a defensive, "everybody's out to get me" mode - AND your own, and be ruthlessly honest with YOURSELF. Then - if you wish - try to explain it all to us properly. You admit that you didn't do a very good job the first time around. So don't blame us for not understanding or not being sympathetic.
Some glimpses of honesty from your opening post:
This is going to make me sound like a dick
I can't be polyamorous any more.
Of course I had to fuck it up.
I'd said we'd go back to monogamy, but I didn't check in with her about it.
I can't wrap my head around it.
And one point where you weren't 100% honest:
She just went back to being poly...and never discussed it.
Considering that this comes immediately after
I'd said we'd go back to monogamy, but I didn't check in with her about it.
it would have been more honest to say
She just went back to being poly...and WE never discussed it.
I have battled with depression, myself, and I know that it can cloud your thinking. I know that it causes you to lie to yourself. I've been there, too.
I am sincere when I say that I'm willing to listen to you, to reconsider my old conclusions. But for me to do that, you've got to do a better job of presenting your side of the story. And that means being honest with yourself and owning up to where you fucked up.
I am also - the Deary knows! - sincere in hoping that you win your battle against depression and that things go better for you. Please seek the help you need.