Bobbi
Well-known member
Let’s discuss!
Polyamory brings up tons of feelings both personal, and pertaining to relationships, and conflicts about how to ethically “do poly” and not feel shame if you aren‘t conforming to the “accepted practices."
Assuming you follow hierarchy, which some people think should be eliminated in poly relationships, The Secondary’s Relationship Bill of Rights says:
“I have the right to have a voice in the form my relationship takes. I am a person with my own needs and my own ideas about what’s important in my life. Even when I am joining a pre-existing relationship, I have a right to have some say in the time I can spend with my lover, and other things about the form and structure of that relationship. If my partners attempt to impose pre-existing agreements about the form, time, or circumstances under which I may spend time with my lover, I have a right to speak up if those agreements do not meet my needs, and I have a right to have my partner and my partner’s partner hear me and consider what I say. That doesn’t mean they have to do whatever I say, but it does mean that I can and should have a voice.” (Bold is my emphasis for this discussion.)
I'm thinking about the following concepts, which are regularly brought up in discussions regarding the best way to do poly in a healthy way:
Relationship anarchy (no hierarchy at all, regardless of the type of relationship)
Hierarchy (making one or more relationships, or partners, more important than the others)
Couple's privilege (recognizing the couple as the priority, tied to hierarchy)
How to navigate these concepts, when you clearly have a deeper relationship with one person, who is in fact the highest priority, and with whom you want to spend the most time?
To clarify, in my relationships, my partners do not have any say in another relationship. Hence, I disagree that a partner’s partner must be willing to, or even take part in a discussion about your relationship. Each of my relationships is discussed between me and that partner only. I do not discuss agreements with other partners unless it directly affects them, which is incredibly rare. Usually that involves safer sex practices or changes in behavior that they must know about to give consent.
That being said, we do have agreements (not a rule, it is what we both want and can renegotiate at a later date if things change) about time we spend together. What he and I do with our “off time” is our decision. One of us has way more available off time than the other does. Some would say that this is something that impacts future relationships, especially with the person who has limited time and that new relationships should have a say in this negotiation because it limits their time.
Even the Bill of Rights says they get a say. To me, this means the new partner gets to impose their needs on the existing relationship, but not the other way around. This doesn't make sense to me. Was it just written poorly and not thought out? Or is it just saying that you should treat your partner with respect and listen to them and empathize with them, hear what they are saying and decide if the request is workable, or, not knowing that either can choose to end the relationship if it isn’t working for either of you?
Is it ethical to make a personal choice where you say, “I'm only going to have a relationship with people who don't interfere with my other relationships?”
How do the ethics fit in and not become couple's privilege without feeling like one partner is entitled to take another partner's time?
Example: you go into a relationship knowing that you're going to see each other one or two times a week. Feelings grow and that person now wants to spend more time with you. You now feel forced (because there isn’t supposed to be any couple's privilege or hierarchy) with a decision to take time away from someone or something else to give it to this other person. Given the Secondary's Bill of Rights, and the right of partners to participate in the relationship design, is it ethical to say to your partner, “No, I'm not going to give you that time, ever,” even though that is what you want to make very clear?
Why should a partner’s other partners be a part of that conversation, when relationships and the people in them are supposed to be autonomous?
Maybe autonomy is the answer, way more than any of this. Maybe these “rights” were all written assuming “couples” wouldn’t have autonomy?
I try to avoid this by being very clear from the start about what I can and cannot give to that person and where the relationship can and cannot go. Is this enough?
Is it fair to start a relationship that cannot grow into anything serious, consuming more time and energy than I can spare or want?
Does it make a difference if you enter a relationship deciding how far you’ll let it go vs. being open to it growing to the max, but it just doesn’t? (Pre-decided vs. just not progressing on its own.)
It seems weird that, on the one hand, we're supposed to have control over our relationships and what we want and have the freedom to make the decision to have the relationships that we want. But at the same time, we're shamed for having hierarchy; we're not supposed to introduce privilege, and we're supposed to give everyone an opportunity to have strong loving and fulfilling relationships with us; and we are supposed to figure out how we do that with limited time, without hurting any of our partners, knowing that we may want to spend more time with one partner than another.
How exactly do we do this? What are the ethics behind all of it? How can we honor the relationships we already have without dishonoring a newer growing relationship? Is it even possible?
Should the new partner assume that they will never have a relationship that feels primary or co-primary and protect themselves accordingly?
Should those already in primary-looking relationships only date others that are in similar relationships?
Given all of this, at what point do you determine that you are polysaturated?
Do you need to think about the time you can give now, or should you be looking at what will be available in the future, if/when they want more time? If you only have one day per week now, and know you won’t have more time to give in the future, should you consider yourself polysaturated and not start dating at all? Or should you start with one day per month because that leaves it open to escalate to once per week over time?
Is being very open and upfront about what you can give enough?
Polyamory brings up tons of feelings both personal, and pertaining to relationships, and conflicts about how to ethically “do poly” and not feel shame if you aren‘t conforming to the “accepted practices."
Assuming you follow hierarchy, which some people think should be eliminated in poly relationships, The Secondary’s Relationship Bill of Rights says:
“I have the right to have a voice in the form my relationship takes. I am a person with my own needs and my own ideas about what’s important in my life. Even when I am joining a pre-existing relationship, I have a right to have some say in the time I can spend with my lover, and other things about the form and structure of that relationship. If my partners attempt to impose pre-existing agreements about the form, time, or circumstances under which I may spend time with my lover, I have a right to speak up if those agreements do not meet my needs, and I have a right to have my partner and my partner’s partner hear me and consider what I say. That doesn’t mean they have to do whatever I say, but it does mean that I can and should have a voice.” (Bold is my emphasis for this discussion.)
I'm thinking about the following concepts, which are regularly brought up in discussions regarding the best way to do poly in a healthy way:
Relationship anarchy (no hierarchy at all, regardless of the type of relationship)
Hierarchy (making one or more relationships, or partners, more important than the others)
Couple's privilege (recognizing the couple as the priority, tied to hierarchy)
How to navigate these concepts, when you clearly have a deeper relationship with one person, who is in fact the highest priority, and with whom you want to spend the most time?
To clarify, in my relationships, my partners do not have any say in another relationship. Hence, I disagree that a partner’s partner must be willing to, or even take part in a discussion about your relationship. Each of my relationships is discussed between me and that partner only. I do not discuss agreements with other partners unless it directly affects them, which is incredibly rare. Usually that involves safer sex practices or changes in behavior that they must know about to give consent.
That being said, we do have agreements (not a rule, it is what we both want and can renegotiate at a later date if things change) about time we spend together. What he and I do with our “off time” is our decision. One of us has way more available off time than the other does. Some would say that this is something that impacts future relationships, especially with the person who has limited time and that new relationships should have a say in this negotiation because it limits their time.
Even the Bill of Rights says they get a say. To me, this means the new partner gets to impose their needs on the existing relationship, but not the other way around. This doesn't make sense to me. Was it just written poorly and not thought out? Or is it just saying that you should treat your partner with respect and listen to them and empathize with them, hear what they are saying and decide if the request is workable, or, not knowing that either can choose to end the relationship if it isn’t working for either of you?
Is it ethical to make a personal choice where you say, “I'm only going to have a relationship with people who don't interfere with my other relationships?”
How do the ethics fit in and not become couple's privilege without feeling like one partner is entitled to take another partner's time?
Example: you go into a relationship knowing that you're going to see each other one or two times a week. Feelings grow and that person now wants to spend more time with you. You now feel forced (because there isn’t supposed to be any couple's privilege or hierarchy) with a decision to take time away from someone or something else to give it to this other person. Given the Secondary's Bill of Rights, and the right of partners to participate in the relationship design, is it ethical to say to your partner, “No, I'm not going to give you that time, ever,” even though that is what you want to make very clear?
Why should a partner’s other partners be a part of that conversation, when relationships and the people in them are supposed to be autonomous?
Maybe autonomy is the answer, way more than any of this. Maybe these “rights” were all written assuming “couples” wouldn’t have autonomy?
I try to avoid this by being very clear from the start about what I can and cannot give to that person and where the relationship can and cannot go. Is this enough?
Is it fair to start a relationship that cannot grow into anything serious, consuming more time and energy than I can spare or want?
Does it make a difference if you enter a relationship deciding how far you’ll let it go vs. being open to it growing to the max, but it just doesn’t? (Pre-decided vs. just not progressing on its own.)
It seems weird that, on the one hand, we're supposed to have control over our relationships and what we want and have the freedom to make the decision to have the relationships that we want. But at the same time, we're shamed for having hierarchy; we're not supposed to introduce privilege, and we're supposed to give everyone an opportunity to have strong loving and fulfilling relationships with us; and we are supposed to figure out how we do that with limited time, without hurting any of our partners, knowing that we may want to spend more time with one partner than another.
How exactly do we do this? What are the ethics behind all of it? How can we honor the relationships we already have without dishonoring a newer growing relationship? Is it even possible?
Should the new partner assume that they will never have a relationship that feels primary or co-primary and protect themselves accordingly?
Should those already in primary-looking relationships only date others that are in similar relationships?
Given all of this, at what point do you determine that you are polysaturated?
Do you need to think about the time you can give now, or should you be looking at what will be available in the future, if/when they want more time? If you only have one day per week now, and know you won’t have more time to give in the future, should you consider yourself polysaturated and not start dating at all? Or should you start with one day per month because that leaves it open to escalate to once per week over time?
Is being very open and upfront about what you can give enough?
