What does lifelong commitment in parallel poly mean?

[Tinwen]

It depends on the relationship.
Treat her like any another acquaintance. She doesn't get dibs on your time just because you are seeing the same person.

But also, people help strangers and never see them again. So it depends on the weight of the emergency and troubles.

Yeah, that is working.
But maybe it's even more like your spouse having family members you aren't close to. If they need care - tough call sometimes.

 

[LaminarFlow]

Yeah, that is working.
But maybe it's even more like your spouse having family members you aren't close to. If they need care - tough call sometimes.

It's up to you to decide to what you are willing to commit.

Personally, I wouldn't feel entitled to or expect help from a meta that I'm not close to. I have my own people. But I would appreciate it a lot if they offered it.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Parallel doesn't have to be extreme, like metamours never ever see each other. Me and meta are acquaintances. We have some common hobby groups. I respect her but I don't actually like her. I don't have a problem giving her a phonecall either.

So one of the dilemmas to understand, what is my role if she gets into trouble? There's no definite answer, but some framework to think about it would be helpful.

I'd support our mutual partner in supporting them. For instance, a friend of mine had a sister who was taken ill just last week. I cat sat at short notice at her house so she could go and be with her. I don't know her sister, so her sister wouldn't have wanted me there, of course. So it's similar to a distant metamour, where your presence would be somewhere between inappropriate and unhelpful. But you can support the people she would want to be there, and have the knowledge and power to do practical things to be there for her in her time of need.

I know her sister felt supported by my actions as she passed on her gratitude to me personally. Of course, my friend did too. Point being, her sister knows I was personally trying to ensure she was supported in her illness. In a similar situation, your metamour would, too.

 

[LaminarFlow]

I'd support our mutual partner in supporting them. For instance, a friend of mine had a sister who was taken ill just last week. I catsit at short notice at her house so she could go and be with her. I don't know her sister so her sister wouldn't of wanted me there, of course, so it's similar to a distant metamour where your presence would be somewhere between inappropriate and unhelpful. But you can support the people she would want to be there and has the knowledge and power to do practical things to be there for her in her time of need.

I know her sister felt supported by my actions as she passed on her gratitude to me personally. Of course my friend did too. Point being, her sister knows I was personally. trying to ensure she was supported in her illness. In a similar situation, your metamour would too.

In a previous message you mentioned I'm naive and everything changes with polyamory. Now you are making the same example with friendship and poly.

It's RA vs mono-normativity after all then?

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

In a previous message you mentioned I'm naive and everything changes with polyamory. Now you are making the same example with friendship and poly.

It's RA vs mono-normativity after all then?

What's similar is that Party C felt supported by Party A despite the distance. I took to answering specifically what the OP asked. Tinwen has already seen in this thread and likely others that I believe things change with poly.

If I did go into that, I would have added that I think that the negativity between the two does change the likelihood of her metamour feeling supported by her in that situation. But I didn't feel it necessary until you misunderstood my post.

So, to be clear, in simple terms, the way I described supporting my friend's sister is a way one metamour can support the other in a parallel situation. However, when there is the kind of climate that Evie described, the chances of everyone seeing everyone else's actions in the most charitable light decreases. Something that could be simple isn't simple when human emotions are involved

 

[LaminarFlow]

What's similar is that Party C felt supported by Party A despite the distance. I took to answering specifically what the OP asked. Tinwen has already seen in this thread and likely others that I believe things change with poly.

If I did go into that, I would have added that I think that the negativity between the two does change the likelihood of her metamour feeling supported by her in that situation. But I didn't feel it necessary until you misunderstood my post.

So, to be clear, in simple terms, the way I described supporting my friend's sister is a way one metamour can support the other in a parallel situation. However, when there is the kind of climate that Evie described, the chances of everyone seeing everyone else's actions in the most charitable light decreases. Something that could be simple isn't simple when human emotions are involved.

Am just wondering what's the difference with RA in this case? What is love anyway? How do you define a partner or differentiate from friends? Or friend of a friend.

These notions are very abstract.
If we strip the terms mono, poly, friend, acquaintance, and just do whatever you want with someone within your own framework, limits and commitments of care would make more sense to me.

As one decides for themselves how involved they want to be in someone else's life and are not obligated to extend certain commitments whether it is a partner, friend, family, meta, acquaintance and so on.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Am just wondering what's the difference with RA in this case?

You speak of RA as if identifying as a RA means you automatically rise above your mononormative conditioning and out of those pesky human traits of resentment, jealousy and fear. It doesn't work like that.

It really doesn't matter if the people involved are polyamorous, relationship anarchists, hierarchical or not; the chances that people become territorial in this way once NM is involved increases substantially. Moreso when the arrangement is deliberately parallel.

 

[LaminarFlow]

You speak of RA as if identifying as a RA means you automatically rise above your mononormative conditioning and out of those pesky human traits of resentment, jealousy and fear. It doesn't work like that.

Not at all. Where do I say that?

It really doesn't matter if the people involved are polyamorous, relationship anarchists, hierarchical or not; the chances that people become territorial in this way once NM is involved increases substantially. Moreso when the arrangement is deliberately parallel.

I do see a lot of structures that deliberate parallel comes more from a mononormative conditioning and circumstantial parallel from a more RA approach.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Not at all. Where do I say that?


I do see a lot of structures that deliberate parallel comes more from a mononormative conditioning and circumstantial parallel from a more RA approach.

I don't think that's true. All it takes is for one half of an established couple to find a metamour intolerable for whatever reason. The less "established" you are as a couple, the easier it is to navigate such difficulties in an optimal way. But if you're nesting or co-parenting or something, it becomes easier for emotions to bleed over and prompt limitations one way or the other.

What it takes to make the change is conflict. Either internally, or externally between two people.

 

[EldritchDucky]

I'd love to chime in. Jess and I have talked about what we need from one another that puts us in the swinging camp over the poly camp. Safety net is a phrase that's come up frequently when we talk about what our lifelong commitment is. I might even coin a term "Safety Net Energy" if I had eaten my Wheaties that morning. This was an important part of us getting our head around poly and subsequently choosing swinging as what works for us. So, forgive the monogamish angle.

• Who are we a safety net to and, perhaps more relevant to this discussion, who are we not?
• Who appreciates us for being that safety net? Who do we appreciate for being one?
• Who is empowered by being their safety net? Are we empowered by one?
• Is the safety net relationship reciprocal?
• Do you feel that safety net energy flow through a third party or is that an external expectation?
• Can you reduce this how you feel about this to the porosity of your boundaries, both input and output?

And I'm sure some classic discussions of secure attachment are relevant here? Who/where is your safe haven and your secure base, and are you fulfilling that role for someone(s) else?

These notions are very abstract.
If we strip the terms mono, poly, friend, acquaintance, and just do whatever you want with someone within your own framework, limits and commitments of care would make more sense to me.

I think the most important questions here propose a telescoping concept of commitment.

• Are you known well enough by others to be predicted?
• Who is predicting they can rely on you?
• Who is relying on you to share their priorities?

And overarching this all is if you've communicated that beyond saying I'm this label or that label, like RA, hinge, meta. Because these labels do a shitty job of expressing complexity and corral us into rigid impressions of our roles.

 

[Magdlyn]

I'd love to chime in. Jess and I have talked about what we need from one another that puts us in the swinging camp over the poly camp. Safety net is a phrase that's come up frequently when we talk about what our lifelong commitment is. I might even coin a term "Safety Net Energy" if I had eaten my Wheaties that morning. This was an important part of us getting our head around poly and subsequently choosing swinging as what works for us. So, forgive the monogamish angle.

• Who are we a safety net to and, perhaps more relevant to this discussion, who are we not?
• Who appreciates us for being that safety net? Who do we appreciate for being one?
• Who is empowered by being their safety net? Are we empowered by one?
• Is the safety net relationship reciprocal?
• Do you feel that safety net energy flow through a third party or is that an external expectation?
• Can you reduce this how you feel about this to the porosity of your boundaries, both input and output?

And I'm sure some classic discussions of secure attachment are relevant here? Who/where is your safe haven and your secure base, and are you fulfilling that role for someone(s) else?


I think the most important questions here propose a telescoping concept of commitment.

• Are you known well enough by others to be predicted?
• Who is predicting they can rely on you?
• Who is relying on you to share their priorities?

And overarching this all is if you've communicated that beyond saying I'm this label or that label, like RA, hinge, meta. Because these labels do a shitty job of expressing complexity and corral us into rigid impressions of our roles.

What does the term "safety net" even mean? How does it work? What are you keeping people safe from? Is this implied, in swinging, to only pertain to your primary, or would you provide some kind of "safety net" to others-- family, close friends, sex partners (regulars and comets)? Are there different sizes of nets, and different tightness of weave of said nets?

How would this "safety net" work in polyamory, with the greater amount of commitments, in your view?

 

[dingedheart]

You see, I don't know that - not before "death do us part".
My parents are happily married, 40 years now.
My grandparents from my father's side were happily married all their lives before grandpa died a few years ago.
My other grandpa died when mom was little. Grandma mourned him for a very long time and never remarried (well, that wasn't healthy).

My relationship role-models have all lived the monogamous fairy-tale. I don't know about shelf-life.

Unfortunately, the greatest generation and boomers had different ethical/moral codes, and/or were more influenced by religion than nowadays. Back then a man’s handshake meant something. Now that’s laughable.

I was introduced to relationship shelf-life here on the forum.

 

[Tinwen]

Unfortunately, the greatest generation and boomers had different ethical/moral codes, and/or were influenced by religion than nowadays. Back then a man’s handshake meant something. Now that’s laughable.

I was introduced to relationship shelf-life here on the forum.

Sure, I've read the term on the forum.
Honesty is not laughable.

 

[EldritchDucky]

What does the term "safety net" even mean? How does it work? What are you keeping people safe from? Is this implied, in swinging, to only pertain to your primary, or would you provide some kind of "safety net" to others-- family, close friends, sex partners (regulars and comets)? Are there different sizes of nets, and different tightness of weave of said nets?

How would this "safety net" work in polyamory, with the greater amount of commitments, in your view?

It certainly has meaning in our relationship, since we are very much primaries. And, to state the obvious, swinging isn’t poly.

A safety net, to me, is just another term for the classical safe-haven/secure-base of secure attachment.

In swinging, we don’t extend a safety net to others we play with, and the net we present to our partner is tightly woven. In our relationship, its exclusivity and reliability are necessary.

In poly, I imagine all those variables are in play. How tight the weave is (I love the analogy proposed). Who gets it. When they get it. What to do when it’s already being stretched by someone else. What to do when someone uses it so much it gets worn out and threadbare, affecting other’s use of it. Can it be presented in a way that doesn’t compromise its effectiveness?

But you propose family and friends to challenge the concept very effectively. I suppose who gets the safety net is a function of emotional attachment.

I would caution safety netting in an inequitable or “semi-consensual” relationship. I think we know what that looks like, and it looks like neglect.

I’m not quite sure. It could be done various ways.

 

[Tinwen]

It certainly has meaning in our relationship, since we are very much primaries, and, to state the obvious, swinging isn’t poly.

A safety net, to me, is just another term for the classical safe-haven/secure-base of secure attachment.

In swinging, we don’t extend a safety net to others we play with, and the net we present to our partner is tightly woven. In our relationship, its exclusivity and reliability are necessary.

In poly, I imagine all those variables are in play. How tight the weave is (I love the analogy proposed). Who gets it. When they get it. What to do when it’s already being stretched by someone else. What to do when someone uses it so much is gets worn out and threadbare affecting other’s use of it. Can it be presented in a way that doesn’t compromise its effectiveness?

But you propose family and friends to challenge the concept very effectively. I suppose who gets the safety net is a function of emotional attachment.

I would caution safety netting in an inequitable or “semi-consensual” relationship. I think we know what that looks like and it looks like neglect.

I’m not quite sure. It could be done various ways.

So a safety net, for you, is feelings, not a commitment to do something?

 

[moiandre]

I see life partners partners as extended family. Some extended family I'd drop everything for, others I'd send a card, some get nothing. It depends on my relationship with them. In this way I'm very RA.

What does RA mean?

Nobody gets special treatment because of relation. It's all about my relationship with that individual and my commitments to that individual.

My life partner gets all the commitments, just like marriage, but those don't extend to anyone else by proxy.

 

[Magdlyn]

What does RA mean?

Relationship anarchy-- and you can google that for all kinds of information. It's not easily defined in a few words.

 

[moiandre]

Relationship anarchy-- and you can google that for all kinds of information. It's not easily defined in a few words.

thanxs

 

[Bobbi]

What does RA mean?

So many things can have too many opinions, so I'll tell you what it means to me. Relationship anarchy means choosing every person in my life. People do not have entitlement to me based on the type of relationship they have with me. My spouse is not automatically at the top, followed by my parents, then my siblings, followed by other blood relatives over everyone else. For me, my hierarchy is based instead on the connection and closeness I have with each individual, not by the type of relationship, blood, or time I've known them.

Speaking of your question, it would depend on my relationship with my meta. If we were connected strongly, then I'd be there no matter what. If we were friends, then I'd help out if needed. If we never talked, I'd keep it polite, just as it was when partner was around, and would feel no responsibility unless my partner asked me to and I agreed... like taking care of a distant cousin.

My commitment to my partner doesn't automatically extend to a meta. I am fully committed to my partner in every way and will take care of him if/when needed, and he will do the same for me. It doesn't matter that he or I have other partners. In fact, that can be very helpful! Caregiving is so hard on the caregiver. Being able to share that amongst several people would be great for my partner, as well as for all of his partners. We will all get a break and still be able to have a life apart from caregiving, while still being there in a caring and loving way.

 

[EldritchDucky]

So a safety net, for you, is feelings, not a commitment to do something?

Both/and. I'd be tempted to answer that question rigidly since it was posed with a certain rigid expectation, but... why not both? I'd say it honors the feelings for who they are, were, and are expected to be in your life. It's also a commitment to let that bond mean you show up for them, through the inevitable changes with the hope that they're do the same. But what if they're not? How much change invalidates the commitment? That's something I argue we tend to FEEL our way through (in the absence of a clear boundary breach).

What does that mean in actual practice? Sounds like a core debate in polyamory. I prefer to think in terms of loyalty as an expression of commitment in practice. And while you can deal out a lot of commitment in rigid discrete moments in time, loyalty is elastic and can be stretched through overuse up to breaking. Once that commitment no longer spurs loyalty, I argue the commitment has broken for someone.

Honestly, I'm pretty sour on the rigid idea of lifelong commitment after my experiences. One of the things I have reverent respect for in poly is the practice of showing up because you want to and knowing that the reason people are there for you is because they want to. Does that extend to showing up out of obligation to the commitment out of a "SHOULD" or because of a "WANT" to uphold the commitment because you value it?

Looping back to the topic, I believe that, to have true commitment, you need to have excess capacity to show up for your commitments. That's hard for some people to be honest with themselves about, especially in inexperienced poly.