I tend to look at things as negotiations...maybe it's the kinkster in me...but think of it like a scene from Pawn Stars. You come to the table with your thing, there is a conversation about what is being offered for sale, and what price is desired and maybe a few offers and counter-offers get tossed around...at the end, either an agreement is reached, with a handshake and a transaction, or someone says "no deal" and they walk away.
Now apply that, in a way, to every piece of every relationship and interaction, especially Relationships (mono or poly, polyfi or RA, or whatever)...
"I'm offering a relationship, but I cannot be with a partner who <watches lame movies, votes for trump, eats poo, WHATEVER>"
"Um...I don't really want to do any of those things. Ew. So that's fine."
-or-
"I'm sorry but I can't be with someone who is concerned with what I do, I need absolute freedom to do anything I want, and unless it directly affects you, I can't have you telling me not to."
That would be a walking away from the bargaining table move, which is fine, we all do have that freedom ultimately.
I personally am fairly flexible in the possible relationship styles that make me happy. I was poly with a quad plus a dyad on the side, in my life, then severed my Relationship bond (mostly my intent was to no longer offer sex to them, and to remove the "Girlfriend" label...the real result though is that we don't even hang out much as friends anymore...but we are all quite busy. But when you find that the main reason you spent a lot of time together was because it was some expectation due to a label, maybe a good signal that you should reevaluate anyways) with the quad, and now I am in a semi-Closed dyad.
I consider myself mostly monogamous...monogamish maybe.
But it was not a restriction of him coming to me and making rules at me, nor me at him. I felt that he was trying to not impose himself on me and was just so happy to have me in his life, he'd put up with just about anything...he can be that way sometimes. So I specifically asked what would make him more, or less comfortable, and if there were any agreements he would like to ask for. I never said that I would agree to them, at that point, but that I was opening negotiation.
He said that he would feel more comfortable if I didn't have sex with other men. I got VERY specific about this, because for instance, we play at dungeon parties. So I am allowed to have non-sexual contact in scenes at parties for instance. And the very specific boundary is, I will not have genital contact with men other than Zen. It's a "one penis policy" with the additional caveat that they also won't be playing with my genitals either. But if I want my buddy to set me on fire at a party, that's cool. And he understands that I will have many friends of any gender, I'm a tremendous flirt sometimes, and I'm an affectionate friend. I did not agree to not kiss any other man, I did not agree to refrain from nudity around them, or hugging them, or even LOVING someone else, male or female. And I may have sexual contact with women.
But see he didn't say "Here are rules you need to follow, or I'm out."
He said, "I would feel more comfortable with these very specific things."
And I then said, "I don't have any issue agreeing to those things. Unless I approach you to renegotiate, you have my word that I'll abide by your wishes in these very specific areas."
Note that I did not at that time make any restrictions on him, and in fact he didn't restrict me either. What happened was, in light of the information presented to me, I chose to restrict myself. I did not have to. And had I not, he would probably have continued to just deal with his discomforts in whatever way he needed to.
And had we conflicted on this matter to the extent that someone was ready to end the relationship, that is simply negotiation in good faith too, walking away from the table.
Now contrast this rather mature and respectful approach to my ex husband who was your textbook muggle monogamist, who does what Ravenscroft referred to earlier as "Monogamy as practiced." He simply brought this whole structured worldview with him that he assumed I would abide by because it was Right. His way was right, because that's how it should be, because he says so. If I am "committed" to him, I should want no one else. Not for sex, and most CERTAINLY not for loving or affectionate feelings. Although in the manner sometimes of straight men, he also felt that other women "didn't count." There was no room for negotiation. Any deviation from these restrictions would justify not only a breakup, but probably physical violence, and if I was very lucky it would only be aimed at the "other guy" because "guy code." He would be justified in any acts of retribution he could achieve, such as trying to sever or poison my relationships with our children, shaming me to my own family or forcing me to shame myself to them, revenge porn if possible (what a brilliant and hilarious thing he thinks THAT is.)
It's a pretty tremendous difference.
The point? That I don't think there is inherent superiority of polyfidelity or less "restricted" poly relating, just as I also don't think that poly is even inherently superior to monogamy. I do think that there are ways to do any structure of relationship healthy, or unhealthy...loving and respectful, mature and self aware...or abusive, manipulative, controlling, and ultimately kind of doomed.
I sure don't think that all monogamists are like my ex. I sure don't think that all polyfidelitous folks are operating under similar parameters, either. Regardless of the number of humans involved in the 'ship.
Now as to why this thread looks kind of contentious and prickly. I'm seeing from a few posters a sense that you want to establish your own value set that you have arrived at (I assume) as a result of analysis of your own experiences and application of your own standards and expectations, and plant a flag and say "I think my way is RIGHT and demand others explain why theirs, if different is ok...because if my way is right, then yours must be wrong. Or else yours is right and mine is wrong, but you have to debate me! LET'S FIGHT BRO!" And that same me versus you (See: My thoughts on Objective Truth in another recent thread, and why I don't think it really exists) "discussion" style where it is presumed that one view point must defend itself to the death and emerge the victor of the fray, is tediously pervasive all over the internets. But it's not how I see the world. Not at all. Not online, not in person, not anywhere. And I found the post about the Catholic friend to be right on point in trying to establish that not everybody thinks this way, and I also would like to state that coming back with "this is the internet, and this is how forums work, duh!" was kind of boorish and crudely dismissive of powerpuff's perfectly valid point.
I speak only for myself. Personally, I'm not here to see different views because they force me to question my own value set and determine if it's correct based on whether it stands up to challenge. I know for a fact that I'm doing what works for me right now. But it would be the height of absurdity to think that what's right for me today, would be right for someone else, or even right for me forever.
Which brings me to another thing. I don't think that rules, like laws, are permanent and inflexible. In fact, I was very careful to tell Zen that I do reserve the right to change my mind, but that he should expect me to be honest with him if I feel I need something outside of our existing agreement. I would attempt renegotiation in good faith if that day should arrive.
But, see, I am now with someone who could field a request to renegotiate the boundaries/agreements/rules...and not immediately be filled with a dramatic need to punch faces over it.
you are correct, I am not getting past "the issue" I have with feeling controlled. Should someone suggest a restriction on a behavior that does not impact them directly, I have an "issue" with it.
