Relationships without prescriptions

[crisare]

This strikes me as somewhat prescriptive in itself. I'd challenge it on the grounds that my poly doesn't need to be the same as your poly.
[...]
I don't think all such rules are necessarily symptomatic of problems in the couple's relationship. Some may have to do with trust that needs to be built between metamours. There is also a fine dividing line between legitimate personal boundaries of the couple, where they might still affect the pending/developing relationship with the new partner.
[...]
It may not be a matter of the other partner being threatened by the feeling, but a pragmatic reality that if there were some reason to make a difficult decision between two partners, that decision would be for the established partner. This would be particularly true where Derby notes when there are kids involved in the established relationship.

This all very much is in line with my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

 

[Joreth]

A very similar case in the conventional mono world would be single parents trying to date. Prospective partners need to know there are kids in the picture, and the single parent is perfectly within their rights to establish what kind of involvement they'll allow in a new relationship in order to protect the children from negative effects...either with the children, or even with that parent. The kids are perfectly within their rights to feel safe. The prospect can then decide if those restrictions are feasible for them to live with, and accept or walk away.

Here's where I see the distinction, because a single mono parent is a great analogy.

In order to make the single-mono-parent situation similar to the types of restrictions Ceoli is talking about, this would be like the single parent telling a prospective new dating partner, "Look, I have kids, and they come first, and that means that you have absolutely no hope of ever becoming my husband, no matter how much we fall in love, because that would threaten the relationship the kids have with their father, even if you never do anything to even suggest you wish to negatively impact the relationship they have with their father. I have decided the outcome of our relationship before ever meeting you and you have no say in that."

In the mono world, even though not everyone actually wants this, the default assumption for dating is that people are trying each other out with the idea that they will eventually marry. Most people don't go on a first date assuming that this is the one they will marry, but the point of dating is to find out if this is the person they will marry. Going on a first date with a single parent, most people would think it is reasonable to say that the kids come first. Not many people would think that it is reasonable to say the course of this budding new relationship has already been charted out and be told, "Here are the restrictions, here are the limitations, here is the pace, and here is the stopping point. Oh, and those restrictions were created by someone else and have no bearing on my actual feelings or yours."

This is where it's different to say, "I have a standing date night with my wife on Thursdays, so we'll have to schedule around that, unless there's something very special or an emergency comes up," and, "Look, I like you and all, but my wife has decided that my relationship with you threatens my marriage just because you're another person, so before you and I met, she and I agreed that I wouldn't ever fall in love with you, in order to make sure that she always comes first, regardless of how either you or I feel in the matter, so, to effect that, my time with you is limited to 4 hours every other Tuesday. What? You work late on Tuesdays? Well, yeah, I have other days free. But it doesn't matter, because my wife and I decided on Tuesdays. So take it or leave it."

This is depressingly common among people who identify as poly and as in a primary couple. I have a primary relationship with Tacit. We are not a "couple" in the sense that our relationship comes before all others, we are in a network that requires the happiness and satisfaction of everyone, including the metamours, regardless of who came first, and does not preclude anyone from having more than one "primary" relationship. Someone that Tacit is interested in dating will not be faced by me telling them what their relationship will look like. Their relationship will look like whatever their relationship wants to look like, and if there is a specific detail that conflicts with how I want *my* relationship with him to look, we'll talk about it as it comes up and find a solution that we can all be satisfied with.

 

[Joreth]

Where I see a lot of consistency in those advocating "prescription-less" relationships is that most seem like very experienced polys.

It's funny that you should say that, as it's not the first time I've seen that, not even in these forums.

Although it is no guarantee that just because a lot of people are doing something, it must be right (and I'm sure we can all think of plenty of examples where it most decidedly isn't), if there is a method that several people are advocating, and those people are considered "experienced" or successful at whatever it is they're advocating, one would think that one might want to consider that those people might just know a little something about what they're talking about.

As they say, good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions. It may be possible that the *reason* why experienced polys advocate this method is because they tried it the other way first, like so many newbies do, and discovered that it didn't work, or didn't work for long, which is why they abandoned it and took up the alternate method.

But it's also possible to learn how to make those good decisions based on *someone else's* experience I also sometimes see comments about how newbies *can't* do the more "advanced" method because they're not yet advanced. Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't have to reinvent the wheel, or learn how to drive a horse and cart, before operating a motor vehicle. Sometimes, actually skipping over the newbie mistakes only means you don't have to *unlearn* bad habits first.

I was once told by someone that he had to make his own mistakes and could not learn from the mistakes of others. He outright refused to believe his mother that the stove was hot and hasn't changed his method since. (His mother confirmed that he had to touch the burner several times, suffering some pretty nasty burns as a kid).

That seems horribly inefficient to me. I'm perfectly willing to believe that sticking my hand in a flame will result in burns, especially if I've seen the burns. I don't need to stick my own hand in a fire to learn that it is hot. I might occasionally still get a little too close to the fire due to error on my part, but I don't see as how insisting that I learn this lesson the hard way is anything I should be proud of or continue to do.

Yeah, I know how tempting it is to want to make rules restricting my partner's behaviour in the interest of "protecting the relationship". I also know how it doesn't solve the underlying problem and I worked to change my outlook so that the rules are no longer necessary, and consequently, my relationships are much healthier and happier than either my past relationships or those I see around me who are doing the same ol' thing.

 

[Ceoli]

We should all be so lucky, and I was once. I hit paydirt, a platinum+gold+diamond mine my first time out, and never was exactly sure how. Knowing the odds of that, I'd be a fool to expect to do half as well in the future.
Not having an extraordinarily keen sense of other people all the time, some people may have to rely more on trial and error And the error, while educational, isn't always fun.

I've been learning that luck has less and less to do with finding good partners than I used to think. One piece of luck might be in how paths cross, but I've been finding that the more I'm clear about what qualities I'm looking for in a good partner, the easier it seems to be to find people who have those qualities.

I'm learning more and more that partner selection is a real skill that can be learned. It's not about controlling emotions, but about recognizing how the love you feel for someone can fit into your life, recognizing how that person might be able to nurture your soul, or how they might be able to chop away at it.

Sure, it takes work. A lot of what I've learned about what is good for me has been through directly experiencing people who were bad for me. But honestly, every experience is a gain in that context because it makes me better able to create better relationships in the future.

 

[Ceoli]

And it may not be a matter of the other partner being threatened by the feeling. It may be a pragmatic reality that if there was some reason to make a difficult decision between two partners, that decision would be for the established partner. This would be particularly true where Derby notes when there are kids involved in the established relationship, where disruptions could cause ripples through far more lives than just the 2+1 involved in the discussion.

The type of prescriptive rules I'm talking about don't apply in this situation. People seem to be confusing the idea of not having prescriptive rules with not having any boundaries at all. There's a huge difference. I'm not going to go swanning into any relationship with the idea that I'm entitled to the same things as the partner who's been there for years. That's just silly.

So instead of making a rule that says "No new partner will come swanning into our relationship and think they're immediately entitled to the same things the primary partners have," why not just pick partners who are reasonable and know what's appropriate for whatever stage of development a relationship is in?

If I have a partner with kids, of course I'm going to respect the decisions that have to be made for their benefit. It seems to me that it's a heck of a lot easier to just choose a partner who is respectful of such things than set up a bunch of rules around it to ensure that the partner is respectful. Rules just can't do that kind of thing.

Clearly communicating what's ok with regards to how a new partner relates to the family of another partner is completely reasonable. Protecting the family against the possible damage of the new partner by setting up all sorts of rules and protections around it before the new partner even exists, or has begun any kind of relationship, seems to be a really bad dynamic to start a relationship off with. If I felt the need to set those rules up to protect my family or other partners from a new partner's influence, then I probably wouldn't be getting involved with that new partner at all.

 

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Here's where I see the distinction, because a single mono parent is a great analogy.

In order to make the single mono parent situation similar to the types of restrictions Ceoli is talking about, this would be like the single parent telling a prospective new dating partner "look, I have kids and they come first and that means that you have absolutely no hope of ever becoming my husband, no matter how much we fall in love because that would threaten the relationship the kids have with their father even if you never do anything to even suggest you wish to negatively impact the relationship they have with their father. I have decided the outcome of our relationship before ever meeting you and you have no say in that."

In the mono world, even though not everyone actually wants this, the default assumption for dating is that people are trying each other out with the idea that they will eventually marry. Most people don't go on a first date assuming that this is the one they will marry, but the point of dating is to find out if this is the person they will marry. Going on a first date with a single parent, most people would think it is reasonable to say that the kids come first. Not many people would think that it is reasonable to say the course of this budding new relationship has already been charted out and here are the restrictions, here are the limitations, here is the pace, and here is the stopping point. Oh, and those restrictions were created by someone else and have no bearing on my actual feelings or yours.

It seems to me that this is where our ideas of how prescriptionless vs effective rules starts to blur. As you say, there is an assumption with the single parent anoalogy that the rules would be relaxed or removed at time went on and the relationship flourished. This ties in to what RP was saying about rules needing to be flexible...so that they can change as circumstances change and things develop...not only between paramores, but also metamours.
I'd agree that hard and fast static rules rarely work well for anyone on anything...not just in poly, but relationships in general. Interpersonal interactions are highly dynamic both between different people, and as well over time.

It's funny that you should say that, as it's not the first time I've seen that, not even in these forums.

Although it is no guarantee that just because a lot of people are doing something, it must be right (and I'm sure we can all think of plenty of examples where it most decidedly isn't), if there is a method that several people are advocating, and those people are considered "experienced" or successful at whatever it is they're advocating, one would think that one might want to consider that those people might just know a little something about what they're talking about.

As they say, good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions. It may be possible that the *reason* why experienced polys advocate this method is because they tried it the other way first, like so many newbies do, and discovered that it didn't work, or didn't work for long, which is why they abandoned it and took up the alternate method.

But it's also possible to learn how to make those good decisions based on *someone else's* experience. I also sometimes see comments about the newbies *can't* do the more "advanced" method because they're not yet advanced. Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't have to reinvent the wheel, or learn how to drive a horse and cart, before operating a motor vehicle. Sometimes, actually skipping over the newbie mistakes only means you don't have to *unlearn* bad habits first.

This kind of echo's something I recall hearing from my Grandfather..."It's good to be able to learn from your mistakes...you should...but that doesn't mean you need to go make every mistake in the book." He wasn't wrong.

I don't disagree with what you're saying...there may be benefits to what you're advocating, and I can see some of those places where it might be preferable.

I'd still postulate however that experience is not 100% transferable...and it still involves skills that cannot be developed overnight. The whole prospect could just be too extreme or risky for someone to consider if they feel that they have too much to lose in the event that there's a hiccup along the way...and lets face it...there's very few paths in life that don't involve a few speed bumps along the way.

This is the part which I haven't seen addressed...where the people advocating for rules are experienced poly's entering with other experienced poly's, there may be a mindset shift that I'm just not getting...and that might not be perceived by the advocates. Those advocating...(and I can't say for sure for everyone, I'm still working on a very incomplete picture of personal details, so if anyone who can) presriptionless so far seem to have a couple things in common....the experience as poly where their partners may know what's required, know their expectations, what boundaries are still appropriate, etc. I also get the impression that most of these relationships involve only the adults in the relationships...the metamours and paramours.

There's aspects about taking risks that I think most people understand...the trade-off between the likelyhood between success and failure, and the possible consiquences. When it's just between adults...then everyone should be adult enough to make their own decisions.
When there are other lives involved, the decisions made no longer affect just the adults. It affects people who have no say over anything that happens if or when a relationship goes sideways...but still have to bear the consiquences.

Which I think is where Ceoli elaborates:

The type of prescriptive rules I'm talking about don't apply in this situation. People seem to be confusing the idea of not having prescriptive rules with not having any boundaries at all. There's a huge difference. I'm not going to go swanning into any relationship with the idea that I'm entitled to the same things as the partner who's been there for years. That's just silly. So instead of making a rule that says "no new partner will come swanning into our relationship and think they're immediately entitled to the same things the primary partners have", why not just pick partners who are reasonable and know what's appropriate for whatever stage of development a relationship is in? If I have a partner with kids, of course I'm going to respect the decisions that have to be made for their benefit. It seems to me that it's a heck of a lot easier to just choose a partner who is respectful of such things than set up a bunch of rules around it to ensure that the partner is respectful. Rules just can't do that kind of thing.

Clearly communicating what's ok with regards to how a new partner relates to the family of another partner is completely reasonable. Protecting the family against the possible damage of the new partner by setting up all sorts of rules and protections around it before the new partner even exists or has begun any kind of relationship seems to be a really bad dynamic to start a relationship off with. If I felt the need to set those rules up to protect my family or other partners from a new partner's influence, then I probably wouldn't be getting involved with that new partner at all.

I feel a sense of respect for the idea of that a new partner doesn't get to come in and automatically get an all access pass to use for good or ill against an established. I appreciate that yes...it would be nice to choose partners correctly that would respect the family and do no harm. I can appreciate that putting rules in place to protect the family wouldn't be optimal circumstances for the new relationship to develop.
And I guess this is where I'm having a hard time with the shift in mindset....because years ago, I might have been inclined to agree with the prescriptionless model. These days however, my own mindset has changed in that I don't get to make decisions just for myself any more.
It may be that we're still talking about slightly different and slightly the same things. The boundaries or rules I would be talking about are to protect the family. They would also not be static. But in terms of making decisions to protect the kids...I have absolutely no reservations about making whatever rules are nesaccary to protect them if the not yet existant partner likes them or not. Negotiation can be looked at if and when the new partner enters the picture...and if everything cool...then things are cool. If not...new partner and couple keeps looking. However if there's an area where I'm not inclined to comprimise, its with the welfare of the kids.

As I said... I realise that this is may be from an entirely different mindset to most of those advocating prescriptionless (and based on my limited knowlege of each participant on the thread). And perhaps the rantings of some parent with a slight preoccupation with rules seems a little insane (lord knows when I was single and dealing with parents at the childrens' hospital, I thought they were insane...have you even seen what parents have to do for car seats these days to be 'safe'?). If anyone who can fully understand that mindset can help me understand how perscriptionless would be less risk to an established couple with other lives at stake (as opposed to just the house mortgage, and a dog) I'm all ears.
In the meantime, I would still submit that in certain contexts rules will still be a valid and valueable tool...particularly for those who have spent their lives working on one relationship and are suddenly having to play catchup on an entirely new way of being, as opposed to those who have spent that name time refining the skills required for non-monogamous relationships.

 

[crisare]

So instead of making a rule that says "no new partner will come swanning into our relationship and think they're immediately entitled to the same things the primary partners have," why not just pick partners who are reasonable and know what's appropriate for whatever stage of development a relationship is in? If I have a partner with kids, of course I'm going to respect the decisions that have to be made for their benefit. It seems to me that it's a heck of a lot easier to just choose a partner who is respectful of such things than set up a bunch of rules around it to ensure that the partner is respectful.

But you're assuming that everyone has the exact same idea of what is "respectful," and that's just not true. And I'm not talking about radically different ideas, but subtleties of culture, upbringing, etc. It's possible for both people to be acting in a manner that would be "respectful" in their lives and still be not in compliance with what the other needs/wants.

And that's not just about the realm of poly either. Heck, it happens in mono relationships, friendships, business relationships, etc., where one person thinks everything is fine and the other person thinks the behavior is hurtful. (See earlier in this thread.)

I dunno. Maybe I'm older and more cynical. It just seems to me that the idea that everyone should automatically understand boundaries and what is/isn't respectful is sort of Pollyannaish (no pun intended).

 

[Ceoli]

You're assuming that everyone has the exact same idea of "what is respectful." It's possible for both people to be acting in a manner that would be "respectful" in their lives .and still be not in compliance with what the other needs/wants.

It happens in mono relationships, friendships, business relationships, etc., where one person thinks everything is fine and the other person thinks the behavior is hurtful. It just seems to me that the idea that everyone should automatically understand boundaries and what is/isn't respectful is sort of Pollyannaish (no pun intended).

I'm not saying that everyone should automatically understand boundaries or have the same idea of what is respectful or not. Everybody has different ideas on that. That's what healthy communication is for. And that goes for any kind of relationship, mono, poly or whatever. (I've always held that having healthy poly relationships and having healthy mono relationships generally draws upon the same skill set)

If everyone involved is communicating well, such differences can easily be resolved without having to prescribe rules around them before they even arise. In fact, I've generally found that prescribed rules like that end up being a replacement for communication. I'd definitely feel more secure in a relationship with healthy communication.

And again, in case this isn't clear, I'm talking about *prescribed* rules. That is, rules that exist about an outside relationship or partner before that relationship or partner even comes into play, that are there to protect the insecurities that exist in the previous relationship. Boundaries and rules that grow in an existing relationship, or even between two separate but connected relationships, are entirely different things.

 

[Joreth]

I don't want to have to say, "I don't like the shades of blue that fit within the temperature spectrum of 480 to 509, but the blues smaller than 480 are OK" every time a sentence calls for me to repeat the subject noun, so from now on, when I say "blue," that's what I mean.

Ceoli has already defined the specific types of "rules" that she is talking about when she says "rules." You (generic you) may have a different definition for that word, but within this thread, we are using her definition because she's the one who started the thread.

When she says she doesn't like rules in this context, she's not talking about all those other "exceptions" and variations on the word "rule."

So if you are thinking of posting a reply that says "But a rule that says you don't get access to my checking account on the first date, but we can re-visit that if we move in together in the future," she's not talking about that kind of rule.

She has already clarified that rules that protect kids from the revolving door of new partners don't count, and rules between existing partners are different from rules made by existing partners *for* new partners.

Ceoli is also not assuming everyone has the same basis for what's respectful. That's where the communication part comes in. When you meet someone, I don't know anyone who just lets random strangers into their house who happen to be walking down the street. Usually, they talk to each other first, and if the person doesn't seem like a complete psycho and, in the course of the conversation, indicates a similar sense of respect for personal property and space, eventually that person might be let inside the house.

And of course mistakes will happen. Everyone will think that someone is a good partner for them, try dating them, and have it turn out to be a disaster. But the communication part lowers the numbers of disasters and minimizes the fallout.

The communication is what takes the place of the rules. If you date people who have similar ideas of what is "respectful" to you (and you find that out by talking to them), then you do not need to make a rule whose purpose is to make someone behave respectfully. If you choose your partners carefully, they will want to behave respectfully and, through discussion and communication, will know that their version of "respectfully" and your version of "respectfully" are similar/the same, then you can have a relationship without requiring a rule to keep them in line.

 

[ImaginaryIllusion]

And again, in case this isn't clear. I'm talking about *prescribed* rules. That is, rules that exist about an outside relationship or partner before that relationship or partner even comes into play and that are there to protect the insecurities that exist in the previous relationship. Boundaries and rules that grow in an existing relationship or even between two separate but connected relationships are entirely different things.

I think I'm zeroing in one something here my own self. It could partially be a difference in how I might define rules, when they're added, and more importantly the reasons for them being added.

I'm about ready to mentally check out for the holidays...and thus I think I'm going to sit back and read other peoples' posts on this thread for a while. So far this has been a very informative thread. Thanks to the OP and participants for everything so far.

 

[Joreth]

I'd still postulate that experience is not 100% transferable, and it still involves skills that cannot be developed overnight. The whole prospect could just be too extreme or risky for someone to consider if they feel that they have too much to lose in the event that there's a hiccup along the way. And lets face it, there are very few paths in life that don't involve a few speed bumps along the way.

But we're not talking about water wings in the pool before you learn to swim, or training wheels on a bike, or learning simple math before tackling calculus.

We're talking about holding onto a concrete block because you're afraid of the ocean. The method of using the type of rules that Ceoli is talking about (hereafter referred to as "rules" in spite of the fact that there are other situations that other people also use the term "rules" for) is something that has to be unlearned in order to learn the skills for the non-prescribed-rules relationships. It's much more difficult to learn to swim if you dive out for the first time holding onto a concrete brick and you only want to let go of it one finger at a time.

So if it's someone's first time with relationships, learning the skills of communication and self-analysis are not only more profitable in the long run, but run counter to the rules method. These skills do indeed take time to learn, and trying to learn them while simultaneously practicing methods that directly contradict those skills you are attempting to learn is probably the most inefficient way to learn something new.

The skills that make poly relationships most effective and healthy are the exact same skills that make monogamous relationships most effective and healthy - communication (which covers talking, listening, and non-verbal communication), care and consideration, starting with partners who are already similar in goals/mindsets/worldviews, self-analysis, honesty with self and with others - these are all things that good monogamous relationships also have.

If you don't have these in your monogamous relationship before you open it up, making prescripted rules won't teach them to you and will often prevent you from learning them at all. If you do have them in your monogamous relationships, you don't NEED the prescribed rules because these skills cover everything that the prescribed rules are supposed to cover.

It may be that we're still talking about slightly different

Stop right there. Can we go back now to the types of rules Ceoli was referring to, so we can stop arguing that these two different concepts aren't the same thing?

In the meantime, I would still submit that in certain contexts rules will still be valid and valuable tools, particularly for those who have spent their lives working on one relationship and are suddenly having to play catchup on an entirely new way of being, as opposed to those who have spent that name time refining the skills required for non-monogamous relationships.

I came from a monogamous culture, like most of us did. I didn't even have the benefit of learning about the swingers, the kinksters, or even the hippies until I had already started dating. Where I grew up, there were 2 options and only two options: life-long monogamy or slutdom.

My parents met when my mother was in high school, got engaged at her senior prom, and remain married. Most of my extended family married young and stayed married. I knew about divorce and remarriage, but the end goal was always the same. There was a pattern: you met someone, you had a few dates that were usually diner and a movie, you were "dating", you got married, then you had sex and kids. You moved to the suburbs and bought a dog. That was it. All effort was then aimed at preserving the marriage at all costs, even if it meant you just didn't talk about things that could upset people. (My mother refuses to hear of my dad's time in the air force before they started dating out of fear that she might learn he had other sexual partners, because some military men did, especially those who spent time overseas.) No variation on the theme whatsoever.

Then there were a few people who did not choose that path. But their alternate path was all the same too, with no variation. These were people who did not develop emotional relationships with anyone-- they just had lots of sex. That's it, the two options I was presented with when I developed my own relationship habits. So my early relationship skills come from the very typical form of "monogamy" that our society likes to think everyone has, including all the rules that dictate other people's behaviour and poor communication. I had a lot of playing catch-up to do to get to where I am now.

My point with this rambling story is that I read a lot about these people who called themselves "polyamorous" and I watched how everyone had screwed up before I came along. I tried not to make the same mistakes. I jumped right into prescriptionless polyamory without trying all these other mistakes first.

Of course I made some mistakes of my own, and I had to build my communication skills and everything else, but I did not have to try the method that all the "experienced polys" opposed first.

A few relationships into this whole poly experiment, I did try the rules method, to make someone feel more secure about attempting something new and scary. We started out monogamous and "eased" into it with a bunch of rules. Predictably, the rules backfired exactly as all the experienced polys said it would.

Every relationship disaster I've had can be traced back to falling on those old bad habits, either on my part, on his part, or on both. Every relationship success I've had can credit its success directly to those skills required by prescriptionless relationships, even the ones where we had to learn a skill as we went along were better than those we used the old bad habits for.

 

[crisare]

Joreth, I'm having a really hard time understanding where you're coming from. I went and read some of your blog and livejournal to maybe see if I could get a better understanding and I wound up even more confused.

In your section titled "How I Do Poly" you say specifically:

I am not one for writing up specific rules to be followed, however, I have found that everyone has different expectations and different definitions of words. It is helpful to have certain things written out for clarity. A collaborative effort between myself and other people people with similar methods for conducting our relationships resulted in a document that outlines the kind of ethical treatment and reasonable expectations of a relationship, regardless of its type. It is drafted rather similiarly to a legal contract, but I do not print it out and have my partners all sign and notarize it. It is a useful tool for bringing up specific points in a discussion where expectations are often assumed and not always clearly verbalized. You can download a pdf version. I strongly recommend everyone print one out and use it to discuss individual issues and expectations within their own relationships. It is not necessary to sign it or even agree with each point, but use each point to discuss what your relationship should look like in terms of expecations. Here it is in full as an example of the way I prefer to handle my relationships, the expecations of treatment and the ethical consideration of my partners:

-----
Proposed Relationship Agreement and Statement of Expectations

This Agreement and Statement is understood to apply to the single relationship between two individuals. For the case where several individuals are involved in a multi-person group relationship, this agreement is to apply to each couple within that group. It is assumed that if each person in the group accepts this Agreement and Statement with each other person in the group individually, it will be universally accepted as proper treatment for the group as a whole and/or the group as a whole will have a separate Agreement and Statement that accommodates the larger group dynamic for any details that are not covered in this Agreement and Statement or that are specific to that group as a whole that does not apply to other relationships engaged in by each individual outside the group.

It is also understood that additional unique rules, limitations, exceptions, restrictions, contradictions, etc., may be applied to the two people in this relationship that are not covered by this Agreement and Statement and are not necessarily applicable to the other partner(s) with whom each individual may also be involved, so long as everyone affected accepts said amendments. This Agreement and Statement is not intended to offer complete coverage for all possible relationships between all possible people or all possible scenarios and situations. Individuals have unique and individual needs and therefore may require additional structure to their individual relationships that may not be required with all of their relationships. This document is intended to be an overall Agreement and Statement pertaining to the ethical and respectful treatment of both people in this relationship and to clarify the nature of this relationship as network-based and intentionally polyamorous with inclusive intentions.

[snipped the rest of the contract here: http://www.theinnbetween.net/polyme.html#agreement]

Given the extreme, in-depth detail which your contract goes into, I am really struggling to understand your position when you say that people should be reasonable and that as adults we're all capable of understanding what's acceptable and what's not (using your "I generally wouldn't invite you into my home if I thought you were going to be a destructive jerk" mindset). I guess I'm not sure which point you're arguing (debating) for or against here.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just quite lost at what you're getting at, given the extensive "contract" and information you have on your blog.

 

[AutumnalTone]

I'm learning more and more that partner selection is a real skill that can be learned. It's not about controlling emotions, but about recognizing how the love you feel for someone can fit into your life.

Oh, boy, that's a hard-learned lesson. I learned from my first marriage to look for specific traits necessary for long-term compatibility. I learned from my second marriage to look for traits to avoid to maintain that long-term compatibility. This marriage has lasted longer than the first two and has been much easier to maintain and more fulfilling.

I also know women whom I love dearly and know that we aren't compatible for long-term romantic relationships. Those are the loves I cannot obey, for the sake of everybody involved.

 

[Joreth]

Cisare:

The "contract" was not intended to be an actual contract to be signed and used among all partners, written by me and imposed on other relationships that I am not a part of. It was meant to be a conversation starter, to address those points that many people assume everyone has the same idea about. It was intended to foster communication. I even said that right in the prologue. The pragmatic language of a contract just happens to suit my writing style and more easily breaks topics into categories for me that can be addressed one at a time, that's all.

It might help to rename this "contract" to "An Outline Of One Of My Relationships At One Point In Time". This agreement was never signed and it was never intended to be adhered to indefinitely. It was meant to clarify what kind of relationship I wanted with a particular person who specifically requested that I write it all down in a point-by-point manner.

It is also, as mentioned again in the prologue, a set of boundaries between two people in a relationship, not a set of rules made by an existing relationship to be imposed on an outside relationship.

It was intended to determine if my prospective partner and I viewed relationships in the same way, not to insist that he do things this way with other people if he didn't want to.

Within the contract itself, it very specifically spells out that we are not going to police each other's actions, we will not make rules for each other's other relationships, and we have the ability to make our own decisions about things.

It was meant for a very specific set of circumstances. At the time, I was dating someone who started dating someone else who was really not on board with the whole polyamory thing. He wanted to "ease her into it," and consequently let her do things like refuse to attend the same party where I might attend, and agree to act as the go-between, instead of insisting we talk directly (which I wanted, but she didn't).

When he and I started dating, I explained that I preferred an inclusive network, and I defined "inclusive network" as an open relationship where everyone could make their own decisions about adding or subtracting new partners with no veto rules, but where everyone very strongly considered the feelings of existing partners before making those decisions and where the metamours all had a preference for developing independent friendships with each other. That's the summary, but in reality, the conversation took place over weeks, revisiting the topic and expanding on individual points.

He agreed that he wanted the same thing. This is part of the whole communication and choosing good partners thing. I say I want my life to look like this, he says "Great, me too!" so we have a relationship that looks like this.

Then he started dating this new girl who was very much against this. She did not want to attend the same parties as me, she did not speak to me beyond polite greetings when she was forced to attend (and it was very nearly "force" - many times she only attended under duress, which he put her through only because he hated admitting that I was right and she wasn't into a poly relationship), and she refused to let me have her email address or phone number.

Since I had expressed at the beginning the type of poly relationship I wanted, and he didn't just agree to my rules but said he also wanted the same thing and came to that conclusion before ever meeting me and would have that type of relationship even if he wasn't dating me, I reminded him of what we had talked about, and he seemed surprised.

After many discussions where it seemed as though he had no recollection of our pre-dating discussions of what we each wanted, and it also seemed as though he spontaneously changed the definition of terms we used earlier, he asked me to write out a set of "rules" that he could follow.

I resisted because he very clearly did not understand the meaning behind any such "rule" that I might come up with, and if he didn't understand *why* a rule was in place, it was inevitable that he would do something in the future that wasn't strictly against the "rules" but had the same effect that the rule was intending to circumvent. Also, there are so many exceptions and variations and so many situations that I might not even think of, that trying to anticipate every single possibility and make a rule around it is a futile endeavor.

But he insisted that I write it all down and he insisted that I address the objective actions. So I did.

This contract was an attempt to clarify all those terms and things that he seemed to understand prior to dating but didn't seem to understand once he started dating the new girl. The "contract" was written based on conversations with him explaining the type of relationship I wanted in general and several other conversations with people who were not part of the relationship network who chimed in to give assistance by pointing out possible assumptions that could be made about terms from people with different viewpoints.

The "rules" in the "contract", as I said, are between two existing members of a relationship, which Ceoli and I, and others, have both said are not the same thing. No one here is advocating a complete lack of boundaries and expectations in a relationship - at the very least, the two people in a relationship have to agree on what their relationship actually looks like.

continued on next post

 

[Joreth]

continued from previous post

For instance, the clause on breaking dates was put in there because he didn't actually realize that breaking a date was hurtful to the person you broke the date with. So that had to be spelled out, and all the possible exceptions for when breaking a date is acceptable had to also be spelled out. But, as I feared at the time and as I have been saying here, making a rule preventing breaking dates doesn't fix the underlying issue that his version of "respectful" and my version of "respectful" were not the same thing, and making the rule didn't make him more respectful, it just stopped him from making definite plans in the first place so he wouldn't ever break one again.

One of his other partners was long-distance, so it had to be explained to him why, when he and I made a date to just hang out and watch movies, and she calls up to say she finally got her vacation dates approved and would be visiting over that time period, that was OK to reschedule. But his other local girlfriend wanting to see him on the same night that *I* had to go through a lot of trouble to get off from work & was planning a Special Evening for was not.

I'm OK passing up hanging out when your LD gf comes to town, but cancelling my Valentine's Day plans to be with your other local gf, especially when I would have welcomed her to join us anyway, are totally not the same thing.

As I keep saying, if he doesn't understand or agree with what the rule is intending to do, it won't stop him, and if he does understand what the rule is intending to do, he doesn't need a rule to make him. But it is helpful to spell out what I mean when I say "When you do it for this reason, it's hurtful, but when you do it for that reason, it's not." That's communication. I just happened to not post the dialog; I posted the end result of the dialog in the form of the "contract" because I think in bullet points and Roman Numerals.

She also had issues with seeing me be affectionate with him on those rare social occasions he insisted she attend. So even though I had explained my position on PDA before, I had to spell out, again, that whatever level of PDA was acceptable if she wasn't in the room should still be acceptable when she is in the room. Note that this says nothing about how much PDA he is or isn't allowed to have *with her*. If they want a lesser amount of PDA just because I'm around, they can do that. But *I* shouldn't have to give up my otherwise-acceptable amount of PDA just because someone else wants me to. That's one of the rules that Ceoli is talking about.

There is only one small section that pertains to relationships outside of the couple who is, theoretically, agreeing to this "contract," and mostly that covers the things that really *are* different between poly and non-poly relationships, like maintaining contact between the metamours. Note, however, that it STILL doesn't dictate what those relationships should look like, but rather it spells out the importance of communication among all involved. The metamours can be whatever level and type of friendship (or no friendship at all) that it naturally wants to be, but the ability to communicate when there are problems is important. It doesn't prescribe what my partner's other relationships should look like. It illustrates that *I* am in a relationship with her too-- the metamour relationship, and all relationships require communication to be healthy. It doesn't make any other prescriptions on what my relationship with this yet-to-be-named metamour should look like, either. We can be best friends, we can be acquaintances, we can even not like each other. Our relationship can look like whatever our relationship looks like, depending upon who she is. We just have to be able to communicate.

The new girlfriend refused to communicate directly with me or any of his other partners, so all information was passed through him, which got garbled or even cut out, not because he was maliciously manipulating things, but because that's how passing verbal information works. Our lack of direct communication was making things worse and he didn't understand that and she, apparently, didn't care.

STD testing is another section that could fall under the "exception" category for whether rules are acceptable, except that, again, this "contract" is between the two people in an existing relationship, not imposed on a newcomer. It allows for the possibility of an outside relationship to not fit this model, and outlines how this relationship should change to accommodate that.

STD rules that pertain to an outside relationship are more understandable, but, again, the point is that if you have good communication with your existing partner, it is not necessary to make a rule dictating his behaviour since he would already know and agree with whatever it is the rules would state.

In the "contract," there are some tips on how to communicate more effectively, such as discussing a problem when it's still small and fixable.

In several places, there are allowances for the outside new relationship to look differently than the relationship between the two people for whom the contract was meant. It does not expect the outside relationship to conform. It explains how this relationship will probably change to accommodate an outside relationship that doesn't conform to this model.

It addresses topics that many people make assumptions about or take for granted. It was posted, not as a recommendation that anyone else follow the same pattern, or that contracts in general were a good idea (as was explicitly stated), but to illustrate the types of talking points that are often assumed so that no one else has to go through the experience that I did, where I thought we were both on the same page about the type of relationship we wanted, but it turned out he had no idea what I meant when I said what I wanted out of a relationship with him.

If you read through each point, you should see that they address the boundaries for an existing relationship between two people. They do not spell out what an outside relationship will look like, especially without that hypothetical new person's input. This is not about my partner's relationship with his other girlfriend; it's is about my relationship with my partner.

 

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by Ceoli
I'm learning more and more that partner selection is a real skill that can be learned. It's not about controlling emotions, but about recognizing how the love you feel for someone can fit into your life.

Originally Posted by Seventhcrow
I also know women whom I love dearly and know that we aren't compatible for long-term romantic relationships. Those are the loves I cannot obey, for the sake of everybody involved.

(I don't know how to do that quote within a quote thing. Sorry.)

I totally understand this about "skill," which is why I am okay in my poly-fi relationship. I love many people, but would not indulge (create poly relationships) in anything but what I have, as I really can't see how I would get anything better than what I have. I am really okay, at this point in my life, having had many long-term relationships and even more lovers/partners, with being settled with what I have and REALLY getting into the depths of love we can accomplish now that I know it fits in my life. In this way, anyone else that has the possible potential to be with me intimately is a love I cannot and will not obey for the sake of everyone involved.

Interesting, the word "obey."

 

[StitchwitchD]

"Look, I like you and all, but my wife has decided that my relationship with you threatens my marriage just because you're another person, so before you and I met, she and I agreed that I wouldn't ever fall in love with you in order to make sure that she always comes first regardless of how either you or I feel in the matter, and to effect that, my time with you is limited to 4 hours every other Tuesday. What? You work late on Tuesdays? Well, yeah, I have other days free, but it doesn't matter, my wife and I decided on Tuesdays, so take it or leave it."

Good way of describing it!

In my situation, the couple I met had just discussed having an open marriage, and then practiced that by having casual/FWB relationships with people who either had primary partners or lived far away, or just weren't interested in more of a relationship than FWBs. They hadn't sat down and decided how to avoid having anyone fall in love with anyone. They just did what they wanted with who they wanted, and it worked fine for everyone. The rules were very basic: honesty, safe sex, and he'd set a rule for himself to "visit the marriage bed before going elsewhere."

I became single. I lived 6 blocks away. We talked a little about what their rules were. I was upfront about my tendency to get emotionally attached, but I figured we were already good friends, and she seemed fine with that. So we figured we were good to go and got some. Within a few weeks, I was at their house more than at home. Then she gradually started feeling a bit "ooky" about it, and started setting more boundaries, going from "No crawling into bed with him in our bedroom with the door open when the kids are home" to "No sitting on my side of the bed" to "No sitting on the bed fully dressed having any contact with any part of his body if I'm not also sitting on the bed, and thus you are just scrunching in from lack of room".

We're still good friends, but the experience taught me that I need to know what the possibilities are before getting emotionally involved, and I can't deal with a bonsai relationship. I need to know it can grow into whatever it has the potential to be.

 

[Joreth]

That would be the difference between prescribing and describing a relationship. Describing the relationship AS IS is saying "At this moment in time, we are casual FWBs, with limited emotional entanglement." Prescribing is saying "From this point forward, the relationship will be casual FWBs with limited emotional entanglement."

The problem on my end is not with the structure-- FWBs, casual, poly-fi, whatever, are all totally fine from my perspective, if everyone in the relationship is getting what they want from the relationship. The problem is with making rules to dictate someone else's behaviour for the purpose of preventing the person making the rules from facing the underlying insecurity that makes him or her feel "ooky."

Organizing one's life to prevent ever feeling uncomfortable, rather than facing the fear, does not make that fear go away. It's always there and untreated. Fears like it when you don't examine them very closely. It gives them more power. They then spring up in all sorts of unanticipated ways and often make the people feeling them (and those around them) feel as though the person is inconsistent or not in control of his own life. And no one, including the person in question, can anticipate what might set him off.

That's the situation Ceoli was talking about-- feeling like she has no control or say in her relationship because it would be completely at the mercy of someone else who didn't even understand the problem and therefore can't anticipate things. So rules are piled upon rules, and things can change at any moment, and all of it is beyond the incoming partner's control.

But facing the fear, while difficult and uncomfortable, gives one the option of conquering the fear, so that all those rules become unnecessary, because those actions no longer trigger the fear in the first place, since the fear is now gone.

 

[Ravenesque]

The problem is with making rules to dictate someone else's behaviour for the purpose of preventing the person making the rules from facing the underlying insecurity that makes him or her feel "ooky".

Organizing one's life to prevent ever feeling uncomfortable, rather than facing the fear, does not make that fear go away. It's always there and untreated, and fears like it when you don't examine them very closely. It gives them more power. They then spring up in all sorts of unanticipated ways and often make the people feeling them (and those around them) feel as though the person is inconsistent or not in control of his own life and no one, including the person in question, can anticipate what might set him off.

I am glad this is being discussed here. I am in agreement with Ceoli and Joreth.

In other discussions I have participated in, it has been said that without prescriptions and concepts like veto power within a relationship, participants within the overall poly relationship are allowed to run all over their partners and do whatever they like.

This seems to describe a complete lack of accountability, communication and faith that a love will work to have a thriving relationship on all sides. From my view, having these prescriptions simply highlights an unbalanced relationship generally riddled with unresolved insecurity.

I would not run all over my lover, because I care for him. I want him to be happy. I also would not let a new lover feel stifled, or as though our relationship was contingent on the approval of my other lover, nor that our new relationship was shaped based on the rules set by my other lover.

This thread is 8 pages long. I will add more after I go through a few more pages.

~Raven~

 

[CielDuMatin]

I think there really are some valid lessons, here - ones that we have learned over time to get to the point where we are today in how we handle the "relationship negotiation".

First up - I think I self-identify pretty much as practicising "polyfidelity" - or certainly at that end of the poly spectrum. I don't tend to go for short-term relationships as a goal - my hope is that there will be a more stable multi-person relationship in place.

I also believe that everyone has their own personal boundaries, and the more conscious of them they are, the better.

So, once it becomes obvious to all involved that some sort of relationship is potentially there, we have a session of talking about our respective boundaries, finding out whether there are any clashes or conflicts there between them, and putting the guidelines in place so that everybody can be certain of how boundaries will be respected in that relationship. It's as much to ensure that people have a sense of knowing that their boundaries have been heard, understood and respected. That is the goal of that discussion, anyway.

The current relationship setup has been in place for over a year and a half, now, and was the first one where we consciously did this process. I think that the individuals involved had the emotional maturity to do it, and were - and are - compatible enough (i.e. our boundaries didn't clash in any significant ways) that we have been able to make this work as well as we have.

Just to emphasize that there were no "rules" going in that were presented as a fait accompli to the person entering the relationship. But there are now mutually agreed-upon rules that are in place for this relationship. Should we need to repeat the process with someone else, I am certain that we shall go back to the boundaries discussion and form new rules with whomsoever comes into our lives.

Oh and on a periodic basis we have a sit-down and review what is in place to see if anything needs to be changed. So far there have only needed to be small tweaks made. But if anything major comes up, each is encouraged to speak up and we work together to resolve it. While we try our best to know ourselves, sometimes unexpected things come up that nobody could have foreseen.

I am certainly not going to pretend that this is the only way to do it, or even that it would work for anyone else, but it's how we have found it to be best for us.