Relationship Skill Blind Spots

[EldritchDucky]

Our couples therapist landed a hit with a definition of loyalty that sent me spiraling into that "how was I supposed to learn that if no one taught me?" feeling. She said that loyalty is more than being just supportive and there. There's a component of "allegiance". That's easy in a mono relationship: partner comes first. If they're in a conflict with someone else, you pick your partner's side by default in most cases, if you have to take a side.

As I've been relating to my friends with this new poly-curiosity in play, it's been exposing how I'm not always as loyal as I could be. She went on to say that, in a conflict between metas, loyally picking a side usually means they both end up resenting you, if they feel they have your earned loyalty. Her advice is to not pick a side and simply keep their confidences. Become an "island" in yourself, and then try to build community.

This was hard because if you asked me, I'd say "Well, yeah, loyalty is one of my core traits." Nothing like being told.... I love the color blue, but I haven't had the capability to see the color blue until now, so how do I know what blue is? Felt like most people understand that and no one felt it was necessary to teach me. Jess had trouble with it, too, but more that she couldn't explain how my porous boundaries have irritated her in the past, and now she has the words. It's been a revelation to us both and has really moved the narrative forward in a positive way.

So, I ask the community... what other glaring relationship blind spots have you experienced personally or as a partner on our journey?

 

[kdt26417]

Hello EldritchDucky,

In my (observation and) experience, NRE is a huge blind spot. You go gaga about the new partner, and you don't even see your original partner. In that sense, NRE is a literal blind spot. You're unaware that you're doing anything wrong.

That's my opinion,
Kevin T.

 

[GalaGirl]

I'm glad the therapy session was helpful to you both.

There's a component of "allegiance." That's easy in a mono relationship: your partner comes first. If they're in a conflict with someone else, you pick your partner's side by default in most cases, if you have to take a side.

I disagree. If someone wants me to pick their side in an argument with someone else, I'm willing to hear their story. But no, I am not going to "take a partner's side by default," even if they are in the wrong, or doing things that are hurtful to themselves or others.

Fluffing up someone's ego, like, "Yeah! All those people stink!" even when partner was in the wrong, doesn't do anything great to me. It's just fawning.

Is my allegiance to the partner no matter what, like "ride or die?" Or is my allegiance to co-creating a healthy relationship with the partner and encouraging each other to be our best selves? There's a difference.

To me a more loyal thing to do would be to call them on it, like, "Hey, I see you are hurting. And maybe that makes it hard to see -- but what you did wasn't a great choice. You could have picked differently. If you want to talk it out, I can listen." And for some that SOUNDS like I'm not taking their side. But I'm trying to.

For me the allegiance/loyalty toward my partner is about encouraging them to be their BEST self, not their "meh" self. Creating a healthy enough relationship together, where we can do that, call each other out on things we cannot see, THAT is actually having each other's back, in my opinion.

Being on their side, no matter what, even if they are doing wrong or stupid things, is a bad choice if it has me bumping up against my own core values. That is harmful. I might love a partner a whole lot, but I won't set myself on fire to keep them warm. I have to love myself too. I'm not going to put a partner's stuff ahead of my own well-being.

Another way to define loyalty is "demonstrating commitment" -- which begets the next question: commitment to WHAT things and WHAT kinds of values? Ones rooted in good character, or wonky ones?

She went on to say that, in a conflict between metas, loyally picking a side usually means they both end up resenting you, if they feel they have your earned loyalty. Her advice is to not pick a side and simply keep their confidences. Become an "island" in yourself, and then try to build community.

I agree with some of this. If metas have issues with each other, they can sort things out directly between themselves. If they have an issue with me, they can sort it out directly with me.

I will keep reasonable things private. Each dyad deserves its own privacy. But I am not going to keep a secret or confidence if it means someone is being hurt or could get hurt.

If you struggle with porous boundaries, I could see why the therapist suggested you be an "island" first, and then try to build community. Get clearer on your personal boundaries and what you will and will not put up with, then try to interact with others and build community while holding on to your values, so you aren't just saying whatever to whoever is in front of you in the moment, and kinda blowing wherever the wind blows, your boundaries porous, not firm.

Things I've noticed or bumped into:

• Expecting mind reading/assuming/unrealistic expectations
• Able to articulate and enforce personal boundaries
• Able to articulate emotions
• Able to articulate requests, needs
• Able to say "No" and mean it. Able to say "Yes" and mean it.
• Able to hear and respect "No" from someone else. Able to hear "Yes" from someone else and believe it.
• "Getting carried away with NRE" problems in the hinge or in themselves + taking other partners for granted
• Jealousy/fear
• Comparing to the other partner vs being secure in oneself
• Uncertainty of their value or place in hinge's life/group/organization
• Trying to treat people the same and "equal," rather than actually listening to the person and giving them what THEY need because people are all different
• People pleasing
• Conflict resolution skills
• Being held back by personal work or personal issues that were there even before the relationship
• Willingness to hear feedback
• Willingness to take personal responsibility for oneself and ones actions/choices and how they affect others.

I'm sure there could be other problem areas. I don't think they are especially poly, for the bulk of them. It's just having basic relationship skills in general, because these issues could also pop out in family relationships, friendships, work, etc.

Galagirl

 

[Bobbi]

That

To me, backing someone up when there's conflict, no matter what, is not healthy. I refuse to back someone who isn’t practicing healthy behavior, boundaries, etc. I can listen and empathize, but I won’t hesitate to shine light on what I see as the issue, whether it's the situation, other's behavior or my partner's behavior, if I choose to get involved at all. Sometimes it’s just poor communication between the two, and they are both wanting the same thing, but expressing it differently, resulting in a fight.

You can support a partner without getting involved. That's what my goal is. That’s how I show loyalty.

She said that loyalty is more than being just supportive and there. There's a component of "allegiance". That's easy in a mono relationship: partner comes first. If they're in a conflict with someone else, you pick your partner's side by default in most cases, if you have to take a side.

I just completely disagree with this. I see this description as unhealthy and codependent. Therapists are only as good as their own personal therapy treatment and ongoing education. So many have had little to no therapy themselves and are unhealthy themselves.

 

[GalaGirl]

Oh... another one:

Wanting a "primary-secondary" model, because that's easier to imagine and allows the couple to not think about detangling or actually deconstructing their relationship, and then being surprised when a secondary relationship is outgrowing that model and asks for a "co-primary" model, or at least to be "working towards co-primary," meeting family and friends, not being kept a secret.

GG

 

[EldritchDucky]

I see good points and I like being challenged. I have to admit, we're starting to trend toward some other ENM model than poly. We're applying some of what we learn to understand what we read only in theory. We have to find something that works for us, and not all the conventional wisdom works... because what's conventional about any of this? I don't mean to discount the accumulated experience, but everyone's situation is special and their own.

Maybe I'm representing this in absolutes. You can certainly call them on their shit if you need to.

Wanting "primary-secondary" model because that's easier to imagine and allows the couple to not think about detangling or actually deconstructing their relationship.

And then being surprised when a secondary relationship is outgrowing that model and asks for "co-primary" or at least "working toward co-primary" and meeting family and friends and not being "kept secret."

Yeah, we've been wrestling with the ethics of that, too. (It's a huge shift that we can even talk about that sort of thing without conflict.) We've started discussing what that might look like.

 

[GalaGirl]

Yeah, we've been wrestling with the ethics of that, too. (It's a huge shift that we can even talk about that sort of thing without conflict.) We've started discussing what that might look like.

That's good! I'm glad therapy is helping you have those conversations.

I think it's fine if you prefer some other ENM model.

You all could talk and agree on what happens if people "catch feelings." Is there a willingness to change to another model and deal with things as they come, or is this ENM model the upper limit and there's an expectation to drop the person? Is the expectation to keep it casual sex, more like "one and done," and not like having a regular sex partner, in order to reduce the risk of feelings developing? Is the potential partner aware of this risk and okay with it?

So long as everyone involved agrees and consents to what the deal is, I think they can arrange themselves however they want.

Galagirl

 

[Bobbi]

Yeah, we've been wrestling with the ethics of that, too. (It's a huge shift that we can even talk about that sort of thing without conflict.) We've started discussing what that might look like.

I found my happy place in being levels of orbits. So, it's a hierarchy, but not with one person at the top-- maybe a few at the top. For me, its my 2 life partners, my dad and my best friend. 2nd orbit would be my other long term partners, other close relatives and friends. My 3rd orbit might be more distant friends and family, along with newer relationships and 4th, everyone else, including the general public.

I'm not sure if this helps you, but it did me. I allowed me to have hierarchy where any level could be a possibility, but doesn't guarantee the relationship will develop to that top level. Nobody is Number 1.

I had a very difficult time ridding myself completely of hierarchy. Some people are just naturally more of a priority. It doesn’t mean everyone else are not important though.

 

[EldritchDucky]

You all could talk and agree on what happens if people "catch feelings" -- is there a willingness to change to another model and deal with things as they come? Or is this ENM model the upper limit and there's an expectation to drop the person? Is the expectation to keep it casual sex and more like "one and done" and not like having a regular sex partner to reduce the risk of feelings developing? Is the potential aware of this risk and ok with it?

I allowed me to have hierarchy where any level could be a possibility but doesnt guarantee the relationship will develop to that top level. Nobody is number 1.

Yeah, this can get thorny. I understand the difficulties, but it's also part of the trouble of a conversion, especially in an LTR. I want to respect everyone who might get involved and be upfront. Odds are I can't shift to proper poly unless we decide to wipe the slate clean, start from scratch, I island myself, and then I rebuild my community. I could do it. I could identify as poly and take that step, but I also value my life partner and all the loyalty she's earned from me.

Honestly, I have friends like Katie who would, hypothetically, fit well at the secondary level because she's attached to Sean, and I love that they're together. But, yeah, okay, let's get real. What if they break up and she's up for escalating? What if she needs more than our already flourishing friendship and wants to attach fully? That could be beautiful... and really complicated... and probably not what Jess and I want. We decided in our what-if-ing that forming a triad or quad before the kids are grown up would be difficult on them. And that's nothing against people who choose to do that. I know kids can grow up fine in healthy poly families.

It's just... we made a decision to never be outnumbered by the kids. If Katie brings her two, that would be three against four. Huh. That's funny. I never thought I'd be considering changing the numerator in that ratio...

 

[Bobbi]

What if they break up and she's up for escalating? What if she needs more than our already flourishing friendship and wants to attach fully? That could be beautiful... and really complicated... and probably not what Jess and I want.

It’s okay to not want that and still be poly. The important thing is to be up front about your limitations, set boundaries for the new relationship and enforce them.

Poly people aren’t full of unlimited resources and time. I have a partner i see every two weeks. He cannot give me more. It’s up to me if I want to be in that relationship or not. Me wanting to escalate that relationship wouldnt change anything.

Just because someone wants something, doesn’t mean they are going to get it.

My life partner has very limited time. When he meets someone for the first time he lets them know that he is open to LTR and feelings but his time is limited to maybe twice per month and it won’t change.

You can love someone and not see them all the time. You just have to make poly work for you and be clear about what you can and cannot give.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Our couples therapist landed a hit with a definition of loyalty

You know, there's this whole controversy around couples therapy and why it became a thing. A lot of people see it as intrinsically unethical because of the approach you have to take. Therapists encouraging things like blind loyalty to a spouse regardless of context or detail is an example of why.

It is not healthy to remain loyal despite feeling your happiness ebb away.

 

[Fogul]

I don’t think loyalty by default is a problem. The point about defaults is not that they are set in stone, you can always change the default in a given situation or change the default settings if you find you need to.
For me the default of loyalty and taking my partner’s side is more like giving the benefit of the doubt based on long experience. I trust her instincts and so by default I take her side, but as I learn more about the situation I may move away from that default position.
If over time I found myself moving away from
The default position more often than not I would change my default setting (and probably other changes in the relationship as well)

For me the problem would come as the new relationship develops and you start to build up experience of the new person such that your default position with them would also be supportive. What happens when the two conflict and your default position causes cognitive dissonance.

I’m guessing you either decide not to take sides at all and allow the two to sort it out between them or you suspend your support for both until you know more. For me whether I stick with not taking sides would depend on the seriousness and potential consequences of the disagreement. Relatively trivial matters with little risk of harm I’d want to stay the hell out of, but more serious matters where you can foresee the risk of some kind of harm to one or more of you, I think you have to make your own opinion known once you have enough information to have an informed one.

 

[GalaGirl]

Honestly, I have friends like Katie who would, hypothetically, fit well at the secondary level because she's attached to Sean, and I love that they're together. But, yeah, okay, let's get real. What if they break up and she's up for escalating? What if she needs more than our already flourishing friendship and wants to attach fully?

You could say "No, thanks. I see you are up for escalating but I like things how they are." And then Katie could date to find a new primary and leave your relationship with her secondary. Or Katie could end things with you because her situation has changed and she no longer wants to participate this way.

Just because she broke up doesn't mean you "automatically" move to primary spot on her side. You have a voice in the things that concern you. You have to consent/not consent. Just because circumstances changed on her side doesn't mean they changed on your side and you are suddenly willing/able to do more than before. You might not be.

Galagirl

 

[Bobbi]

For me the problem would come as the new relationship develops and you start to build up experience of the new person such that your default position with them would also be supportive. What happens when the two conflict and your default position causes cognitive dissonance

Stay in your lane.

What I mean by this is, it's not your place to get in the middle of a problem that’s actually between your partners. It’s between them. Stay out of it, no matter what.

You have to be super mindful, though, that the problem might, and is usually, caused by you being a bad hinge. In that case, you need to step up and hurt someone’s feelings by telling them what YOU want. In a relationship with multiple people, they all can want or need time, support, etc. at the same time. You cannot possibly be there for both at the same time and YOU will need to choose and let the other know that YOU have chosen to give your time to the other.

If you find yourself giving more time to a partner having issues, and tell the other that’s what’s happening, you will cause resentment and anger that will be directed at the other partner, not you. They will blame each other for the difficulty in the relationship. This is how bad stuff starts. It's okay for a very occasional emergency to pop up, but if a partner takes you away from another frequently, things will go downhill fast. You’ll need to decide if you keep boundaries and tell the person that needs help that you will be there for them, but not at the expense of time away from your other partner, or let the other partner go, because the needy partner is where you need to focus your time right now.

Do not keep them both and expect things to work out, because they won’t. It’s way better to let one partner go until the issues are solved (you choose which you want to focus on), and maybe reconnect after, than mudding through it. The stress on you and both partners just isn’t worth it and is incredibly hurtful And it may result in irreparable harm, that could have been avoided by a split, if even temporary.

Being poly takes skills that most people don’t naturally have, which need to be learned and practiced. We don’t like taking responsibility for our choices, knowing we could hurt someone’s feelings, but in poly we have to. We have to own our decisions and live with the hurt they cause.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

You could say "No, thanks. I see you are up for escalating, but I like things how they are." And then Katie could date to find a new primary and leave your relationship with her secondary. Or Katie could end things with you because her situation has changed and she no longer wants to participate this way.

Just because she broke up doesn't mean you "automatically" move to primary spot on her side. You have a voice in the things that concern you. You have to consent/not consent. Just because circumstances have changed on her side doesn't mean they've changed on your side and you are suddenly wiling/able to do more than before. You might not be.

I absolutely agree with this, though, in my experience, it's less about an expectation that you will upgrade them and more about the fact that their life situation has significantly changed, and now they want different things, or need to rededicate to other goals (like life partnership). It's this shift that renders you incompatible.

 

[EldritchDucky]

You know, there's this whole controversy around couple's therapy and why it became a thing. A lot of people see it as intrinsically unethical because of the approach you have to take. Therapists encouraging things like blind loyalty to a spouse regardless of context or detail is an example of why.

It is not healthy to remain loyal despite feeling your happiness ebb away.

I see the concern. Our therapist is poly (ambiamorous) herself. Ultimately, she’s giving a name to my wife’s discomfort. It’s been a useful way to think about it and what my wife wants from me. She was adamant that she “doesn’t share," but now she’s refined that thought down to not sharing my loyalty. It’s moved the conversation forward, and I see that as a healthy development. That concept of loyalty has been deconstructed and it can be reconstructed in a new way.

 

[dingedheart]

For me, the biggest blind spot dismissed was being ignorant to and/or fully understanding that the old relationship or marriage was over and that a new thing was being built in its place.

I think the reason/motivation/intention for wanting or needing a poly relationship makes a huge difference in success and failure. In my case, my then wife either deceptively glossed over that, or didn’t actually know herself.

Another thing I’d say was a blind spot for me was the emotional vulnerability. Some of these cascade off of one another, for example, transitioning from a mono marriage of a decade and a half, and NOT being bluntly told, or knowing the old marriage/relationship was dead and a new one forged, BUT being soft sold or suggesting minimal impact. When reality hit, and I expressed the withdrawal, changes in behavior and routines, maybe even expressed the beginning stages of demotion, displacement and/or intrusion, to have that dismissed as, “That's just your jealousy talking,“ implying it was “just in my head"-- that turned my emotional vulnerability into a weak spot which could be used as a weapon.

Nobody seriously thinks about finite-resource allocation in a long-term mono marriage. It’s a default setting. It isn’t until you start really feeling it that it seems to matter that you have a part time wife/lover/mother. I’m not just talking about a physical displacement or absence, I’m also talking about mentally being off somewhere on a device and the priorities having been shifted.

This is a last minute edit a day later but Loss of Consistency in thought or argument and definitely in action or routine. I think we had a fairly consistent logical pattern of thought and communication and thus life. Not to say there was agreement on all topics or even grand disagreements but rather a consistent basis to work through each others logic or point. With the introduction of poly arguments or points seem to be centered on justification and once those arguments gave way to a contradictory statement then that argument / point was discarded for a new one. SAME situation would happen with a given behavior. EVEN topics unrelated to poly or the marriage become emotionally charged topics because it becomes the swirl / spin cycle.