Relationships without prescriptions

[Ceoli]

This is a bit of a mish-mash of thoughts stemming from several threads here and my own experiences as I relate to them and to new relationships in my life.

As I've said in other threads, one of the things that tends to annoy me is the prevalence of people who are in couples and looking for additional relationships, but wish to make sure those additional relationships remain within the constraints of boundaries that exist to protect the primary relationship. I do respect the fact that there are couples that feel the need to do this in order to have successful and working poly relationships, but I'm speaking to this as a person who is outside of that dynamic.

I really find it pretty unappealing to begin relationships with such constraints already pre-set and prescribed.

For me, it's like being told, "I would love a relationship with you, but bear in mind that no matter what happens between us, I will always place this other person ahead of you and regardless of what feelings develop, our relationship cannot grow in ways that might possibly threaten my other partnership."

This is not to say that there should be no regard or consideration for any of the other partnerships that my partner may have. But I find that when I'm given the rule of "our relationship must not cross the boundaries that may threaten my other relationship", I'm most likely destined for a lose/lose situation.

For one thing, those boundaries they are referring to are usually invisible and constantly shifting with the comfort level of the other partner. But even more fundamentally, I have no desire to enter into a relationship where my feelings of love are assessed in terms of what threat those feelings could pose to the other partner. It means I have to structure my relationship around the insecurities of another relationship.

Unfortunately, this is often the atmosphere presented to me by married or partnered people who approach me for some kind of relationship. In fact, it's the prospect I'm most often presented with.

Which is why my latest prospect is such a lovely breath of fresh air. This person has 4 other partners of varying levels of involvement. Some of his partnerships have lasted many many years. And he recently moved in with one of his partners (who happens to be married with a kid and lives part time with her husband and part time with him). These are all women he loves deeply and these are all women he is deeply committed to.

But as we've explored the possibility of a relationship between us, I have not been presented with any boundaries put up to protect his other relationships. Each relationship stands on it's own strength and lends that strength to all of the other relationships that first relationship is attached to. The feelings that I'm developing for him are not seen as a threat by anyone else he is involved with. For the first time, I'm finding myself in a relationship with a partnered person that's allowed to grow on it's *own* merit and feelings without needing to be trimmed or cut for the sake of protecting the other relationships. It also means that he trusts me enough to know that I'll make decisions that honor all of the people and relationships in his life as they will also make decisions that honor me and my relationship with him. So there's no need to set a "rule" to make sure I do that. It's quite lovely and drama free to get to experience NRE that isn't costing anyone else anything.

The other nice side effect is that I'm finding easy friendships developing between me and his metamours that are independent of him, but also connect me to him even more.

As an unpartnered poly person, it is generally harder to find relationships that do not have pre-set prescribed limits that have nothing to do with me. I find that when I have to enter into a relationship that's already full of such rules, it usually means that there isn't a whole lot of trust and that puts me in a very insecure position to begin with.

It's lovely to know that this doesn't have to be the case.

[rolypoly]

How wonderful! Sounds like a catch. ;)

[Ceoli]

He is pretty wonderful, though my life is taking me thousands of miles away. I certainly hope that people who approach poly this way aren't rare.

[Derbylicious]

Here's my perspective for what it's worth. My partner and I have boundaries in our relationships. One of the main reasons is that we have children together and those children need both of us together to be a support system to them. We can't selfishly become involved in a relationship that becomes more important than the one that we have with each other.

Because of this I tend to seek out others who also have a primary relationship. If it's not a good match for you to be a secondary to someone who has a definite primary it's probably just best to walk away from the situation before getting too emotionally invested.

It's great that you've found someone who is a good match for you.

-Derby

[crisare]

Interestingly enough, I find myself feeling quite the opposite of you, Ceoli. I want a relationship where I am decidedly a "second" in the hierarchy. That doesn't mean I want to be emotionally marginalized or that I want to be treated unfairly, but I don't want to become a part of a relationship where they want a full time third partner (or 4th partner, or whatever). I am very comfortable in my life being the secondary to someone who has a defined primary.

Just goes to show that there's someone for everyone, right? :)

[calicowgirl]

This is one I go back and forth on. I am involved with a married couple and so consider myself a second even though I have never been made to feel second. Sir has never been overly enthused by the word "second" either but I don't really see any way around it.

I tend to have some issues because in many ways I see them as one because they are married and so I am the one who makes myself feel secondary.

As to your OP, that is something else we have been dealing with. I have been in this relationship for only a year. There are a few different dynamics in our relationship besides the power exchange. For one, I am really the only open poly one. Sir is open to the possibility but extremely picky and pretty busy with the two of us. S (wife), she is more poly-fi when it comes to emotive relationships.

So far other than talking/flirting with someone I thought might be a prospective partner I have seen no one else since becoming involved in this relationship. I am very leary about looking for other partners at this point in time because Sir doesn't stick with a set of parameters under which he would be ok with my becoming involved in an emotive relationship with someone else. For him it seems to be that it depends on the person, situation etc. I don't feel that I can get close to another without having a more stable set of expectations and knowing what is okay with the both of them. I need for stuff to happen naturally. In return, he needs to be in control.

We talk often about this and have worked through quite a bit in the last year but I am still scared and uncertain about getting emotionally involved with another. So, I completely understand what you mean only from the flip side.

[DrunkenPorcupine]

I think this kind of highlights how no situation is best for everyone. I have a friend who has a "primary" and several "secondaries" and everyone involved is okay with this because they each fulfill what the other wants.

Myself... well...

My wife is my "primary". We share finances and all of of the roles that a mono-married couple does.. except sex. We disagree on that, except for rare occasions.

She's got a few "secondaries" who fill the sexual and some emotional roles. I've got a few people who I'm not sexual with but who fulfill very different but no-less-important roles in my life. I wouldn't be the person I am today, and all of them complete me and compliment me in ways that nobody else can because they're ALL unique individuals.

I understand exactly what Cioli is talking about though. Nobody wants to be relegated to "standby". Yet at the same time, this is all some people want, or are willing to give given the relationship dynamics. And this is okay!

[Ceoli]

Here's my perspective for what it's worth. My partner and I have boundaries in our relationships. One of the main reasons is that we have children together and those children need both of us together to be a support system to them. We can't selfishly become involved in a relationship that becomes more important than the one that we have with each other.

That's certainly understandable. I've noticed a variety of ways that poly couples deal with how they balance children with their other relationships. From my perspective, I would hope that a prospective partner who has children with another partner would have enough trust between them and enough trust in me to make choices that honor that partnership without having to put in pre-set rules before we would even have a chance to explore how our relationship may develop.

Because of this I tend to seek out others who also have a primary relationship. If it's not a good match for you to be a secondary to someone who has a definite primary it's probably just best to walk away from the situation before getting too emotionally invested.

My issue isn't about whether or not a prospective partner has a definite primary or whether my role is secondary in a relationship (I'm actually *not* in the market for a primary style relationship at this point in my life. I will be, but I'm not at this time). My issue is about setting pre-set limits and rules on other partnerships before they can even develop into what they could. For me, setting such rules implies a lack of trust that partners would do the right thing anyway. Anyway, I do walk away from such situations before getting involved, the only trouble is that such situations comprise the vast majority of poly relationships that are available to me.

Interestingly enough, I find myself feeling quite the opposite of you, Ceoli. I want a relationship where I am decidedly a "second" in the hierarchy. That doesn't mean I want to be emotionally marginalized or that I want to be treated unfairly, but I don't want to become a part of a relationship where they want a full time third partner (or 4th partner, or whatever). I am very comfortable in my life being the secondary to someone who has a defined primary.

Just goes to show that there's someone for everyone, right? :)

Funnily enough, as I said before, I'm not really in the market for a primary style relationship. My life is in far too much transition for that. Like I said, it's the idea of pre-shaping other relationships because of the primary one that I find unappealing. And it becomes even less appealing when the motivation is about setting rules to "protect" the primary relationship. That immediately says that what ever relationship I may be developing in this dynamic could be a "bad and scary thing". I really don't need that kind of drama sitting in the foundation of something that I haven't even had the chance to build yet.

I know a lot of people say they don't like the labels of primary and secondary, and neither do I, but frankly, that is the structure I encounter most often when being approached about possible relationships. And my part has already been prescribed. That's what I don't like.


For me the annoyance isn't about not having a primary relationship, its about the huge number of times the nature of what relationship I might have with someone in another primary relationship has already been decided before I'm even in the picture.

[Ceoli]

I understand exactly what Cioli is talking about though. Nobody wants to be relegated to "standby". Yet at the same time, this is all some people want, or are willing to give given the relationship dynamics. And this is okay!

Just to be clear, I really have no problem with being a secondary (or even a standby, if that's what was right for that particular relationship), provided the nature of that relationship has the ability to develop on it's own merit. With this new relationship that I'm exploring, many people would see it as a secondary relationship. At this point, I'm not planning on living with him, I'm certainly not going to be having kids with him though I do want to have kids at some point and am actually going to be moving overseas in a couple of months. However, what I really like is that our relationship is developing into what it can and should be for itself. There is no "protecting" his other relationships in this situation because all of the people involved have a high level of trust and understanding that everyone will make choices that honor each other. I don't have to dance around the boundaries and limits of other people or be subject to a set of rules. There's no need because everyone involved is secure enough to communicate their needs and listen to other's needs. This also creates the lovely side effect of getting along well and easily with all my metamours in this situation.

So it's not about being a primary or a secondary or a tertiary or anything like that. It's about how setting rules and protections up around one relationship can stunt the growth of another relationship.

[DrunkenPorcupine]

Just to be clear, I really have no problem with being a secondary (or even a standby, if that's what was right for that particular relationship), provided the nature of that relationship has the ability to develop on it's own merit. With this new relationship that I'm exploring, many people would see it as a secondary relationship. At this point, I'm not planning on living with him, I'm certainly not going to be having kids with him though I do want to have kids at some point and am actually going to be moving overseas in a couple of months. However, what I really like is that our relationship is developing into what it can and should be for itself. There is no "protecting" his other relationships in this situation because all of the people involved have a high level of trust and understanding that everyone will make choices that honor each other.

I get it. I do. I'm a HUGE fan of letting every relationship evolve into what it might be.

On the flip side of that, knowing I agree with you quite a bit, it sucks to have anything stiffled.

[constlady]

But as we've explored the possibility of a relationship between us, I have not been presented with any boundaries put up to protect his other relationships. Each relationship stands on it's own strength and lends that strength to all of the other relationships that first relationship is attached to. The feelings that I'm developing for him are not seen as a threat by anyone else he is involved with. For the first time, I'm finding myself in a relationship with a partnered person that's allowed to grow on it's *own* merit and feelings without needing to be trimmed or cut for the sake of protecting the other relationships. It also means that he trusts me enough to know that I'll make decisions that honor all of the people and relationships in his life as they will also make decisions that honor me and my relationship with him. So there's no need to set a "rule" to make sure I do that. It's quite lovely and drama free to get to experience NRE that isn't costing anyone else anything.

The other nice side effect is that I'm finding easy friendships developing between me and his metamours that are independent of him, but also connect me to him even more.

As an unpartnered poly person, it is generally harder to find relationships that do not have pre-set prescribed limits that have nothing to do with me. I find that when I have to enter into a relationship that's already full of such rules, it usually means that there isn't a whole lot of trust and that puts me in a very insecure position to begin with.

It's lovely to know that this doesn't have to be the case.


Oh yes! I could nearly have written this myself!

I am so blessed that all of the members of this amazing polyfamily I wandered into feel that allowing relationships to grow organically, with trust in the love between each member, is the healthiest way to relate.

And I agree whole-heartedly with the nice side effect that has of helping to forge greater bonds between all the members as well. Perhaps because right from the start, I knew that my presence was accepted and welcomed without qualification. Feeling respected and included early on made for fertile ground for deepening friendships. It doesn't hurt that we're rather alike in many ways as well ;)

[Ceoli]

Constlady, A-FREAKING-MEN!

[AutumnalTone]

I have no idea how prevalent that might be--I've never looked to get involved with somebody who's poly and married (or has a long-term primary). It could be the most common sort of dynamic currently manifesting, though I think that would be a sad state of affairs.

I find it sad because I think it speaks to a fundamental problem in the primary relationship--and I have to wonder why'd they'd even consider adding other people to their lives when their primary relationship isn't very strong. Look, folks, if your existing relationships aren't good--and that means functional and strong on every level--then adding more relationships is not a wise thing to do!

I don't think I have to set any boundaries with regard to that, simply because I'm never looking to replace my wife. I married her for a reason and that doesn't change simply because I may be involved with somebody else. Should the laws ever change and we could add people to our marriage, that'd be cool--I just have no interest in trying to replace my wife.

As long as my wife and I are taking care of "Us," adding more "Us" combinations isn't going to be a problem. Setting boundaries on those other "Us" combinations can then be seen to be rather silly, I think.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

... simply because I'm never looking to replace my wife. I married her for a reason and that doesn't change simply because I may be involved with somebody else. Should the laws ever change and we could add people to our marriage, that'd be cool--I just have no interest in trying to replace my wife.

I hear that....


As long as my wife and I are taking care of "Us," adding more "Us" combinations isn't going to be a problem. Setting boundaries on those other "Us" combinations can then be seen to be rather silly, I think.
This part...might be situation dependant. If it's just "Us" adults...perhaps. There's at least two things I can see that stand around like monkeys waiting to throw wrenches...
1) Kids...there was a hottie talking about that earlier in the thread.
And
2) new partners take time...it's no ones fault, but the "Us"s that's wearing rings have likely known each other far longer...it's not that the same level wouldn't eventually be possible, but it takes time. In a similar fashion, I've watched countless friends go through the usual serial parade of relationships because they keep hooking up with people who are all kinds of NRE fun...maybe longer...often they find out too late...and eventually things go sour because they're not a good match...and one or the other is liable to be unkind during the breakup process.
I'd could see some of those unkindnesses as very real risks to the previously established 'matrimonial' relationship, even if it was strong to begin with.
And of course...this situation leads directly back to #1 when there's kids involved.

It is not a given...this is a worser case scenario...but it is possible. There is no reason in my mind why an established couple would be 'silly' to ensure some rules were in place to mitigate that risk.

Similarly I would not consider it silly for a prospective third to want rules to mitigate risks to them....since couples are twice as capable as behaving badly as a single.

[Ceoli]

It is not a given...this is a worser case scenario...but it is possible. There is no reason in my mind why an established couple would be 'silly' to ensure some rules were in place to mitigate that risk.

Similarly I would not consider it silly for a prospective third to want rules to mitigate risks to them....since couples are twice as capable as behaving badly as a single.

Or you can chose partners that you trust will make choices that honor the relationship and behave well. Even in the midst of NRE.

[GroundedSpirit]

Ceoli,

I agree with your perspective - at least to a large degree. Our style is also much like that (no rules-no limitations). But I also understand and tend to be maybe more empathetic with others and their particular situations. I think it's important to remember that most people are in their infancy in exploring what they see as having potential for something good. And yet I suspect we all know the horror stories that abound. If you've ever had open discussions around poly loving in a mixed group of poly minded and mono minded people you soon learn the fears and misinformation that circulates. I also respect the fact that relationships are (as others have mentioned) more than just an emotional one. There can be various physical factors involved (kids, finances, property etc) that really have to take priority for the greater good. You've shown your understanding & respect for that also.
But maybe here's another angle to consider...........
When we come across situations like this we try to dig beyond the "rules" by getting to know the individuals more intimately to understand why those rules may exist. Rather than blow them off because they don't meet "our" immediate need or perfect world view, we sometimes ask what "we" can contribute to them to help them move forward with their hopes & dreams. By giving them the opportunity to proceed slowly into waters that they want to swim but are afraid because of all the negativity commonly associated, we're trying to add to the net-positive. Rules can and often DO change because they are often constructed to protect against worst case scenarios. We all know even the nicest, best intentioned situations can turn ugly - sometimes because of factors not really related to the potential poly situation.
It's wonderful that you've stumbled upon some folks that are more evolved in their practice. We'd all wish for that. But in the mean time we also feel we have a valuable role as teachers - givers rather than receivers.

GS

[Derbylicious]

Or you can chose partners that you trust will make choices that honor the relationship and behave well. Even in the midst of NRE.

Except when you don't know someone that well it can be hard to tell if down the line they will continue to behave well and honour the relationship. I trust my husband to do what is best for 'us' but until I know the new someone well there are some boundaries in place to prevent some of the drama that can happen. That's not to say that the boundaries aren't negotiable, it's just a starting point to work from where everyone currently involved is comfortable.

-Derby

[NeonKaos]

It is not a given...this is a worser case scenario...but it is possible. There is no reason in my mind why an established couple would be 'silly' to ensure some rules were in place to mitigate that risk.

Similarly I would not consider it silly for a prospective third to want rules to mitigate risks to them....since couples are twice as capable as behaving badly as a single.The established couple may have rules that apply to THEIR relationship, but they shouldn't have rules that pre-emptively dictate how their OTHER relationship(s) unfold and evolve.

The same thing re: the "prospective third". "They" may want to have rules about the relationship(s) THEY are in, but they don't get to dictate, "You two need to be / cannot be [a certain way] when you're together so that I can feel secure."

[Ceoli]

Except when you don't know someone that well it can be hard to tell if down the line they will continue to behave well and honour the relationship. I trust my husband to do what is best for 'us' but until I know the new someone well there are some boundaries in place to prevent some of the drama that can happen. That's not to say that the boundaries aren't negotiable, it's just a starting point to work from where everyone currently involved is comfortable.

-Derby

Negotiating boundaries within a relationship that's forming or already formed is perfectly reasonable. Setting boundaries for a relationship that doesn't yet exist isn't so much. At least not for the person that may be entering that relationship.

It is completely reasonable for couples to have agreements for what they consider to be acceptable within their relationship. But when those agreements start to be about what's acceptable within my relationship, then I have a problem. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be boundaries. I'm saying that creating boundaries for the sake "protecting" one relationship against another can be problematic. Getting involved with a new partner is a gamble any way you look at it. But partner selection is a skill, and not a terribly hard skill to learn at that. I would trust that my partner can recognize when a potential partner is going to cause harm and make the choice that honors what we have. I don't see the need to set up an outside rule that makes sure he or she does that.

[AutumnalTone]

It is not a given...this is a worser case scenario...but it is possible. There is no reason in my mind why an established couple would be 'silly' to ensure some rules were in place to mitigate that risk.


It still seems silly to me. If the couple is taking care of "Us" and is also taking care of the children--at all times, as a constant--then that care will always be operating and nothing more needs to be done to make certain that "Us" and the children are taken care of. If that "Us" is strong and functional, nothing else need be done.

And if that care of "Us" isn't happening as a constant, then no amount of rules or boundaries is capable of saving it. I do believe it really is that simple. You either nurture your relationships or you don't. The former protects them from essentially everything and the latter means they're unlikely to prosper regardless of any props or crutches.

And I swear my reading glasses are not rose-colored....

[Ceoli]

and if that care of "us" isn't happening as a constant, then no amount of rules or boundaries is capable of saving it. I do believe it really is that simple. You either nurture your relationships or you don't. The former protects them from essentially everything and the latter means they're unlikely to prosper regardless of any props or crutches.

And i swear my reading glasses are not rose-colored....

exactly!

[AutumnalTone]

The established couple may have rules that apply to THEIR relationship, but they shouldn't have rules that pre-emptively dictate how their OTHER relationship(s) unfold and evolve.

The same thing re: the "prospective third". "They" may want to have rules about the relationship(s) THEY are in, but they don't get to dictate, "You two need to be / cannot be [a certain way] when you're together so that I can feel secure."

Exactly!

[NeonKaos]

exactly!

Exactly!

You two sure are eloquent this afternoon! :p

[ImaginaryIllusion]

You two sure are eloquent this afternoon! :p

Exactly! :rolleyes:

[crisare]

Except when you don't know someone that well it can be hard to tell if down the line they will continue to behave well and honour the relationship.
And sometimes what is not an issue for one couple might be a boundary for another couple - and no one realizes it until you're smack in the middle of it and it's too late.

Honestly I would rather go into a relationship where there are rules from the start, than find myself blindsided by "this doesn't work for me" when I'm already emotionally committed.

When my husband and I moved cross country, we lived with a relative and his wife for 6 months until we got stabilized, found jobs, and figured out what part of town we wanted to live in. I had asked about "house rules" up front and was told that there was no need for "house rules" because we were all adults and we were family and we'd deal with things as they came up. Except that as things came up, no one wanted to deal with them for fear of seeming ungrateful (our side) and resentment and feeling taken advantage of (their side). What were really little issues that could have been avoided by having a set of rules in place up front, wound up seriously damaging a family relationship that took many years to be made whole again.

I can only imagine how much more devastating that has potential to be when extrapolated out to intimate relationships, sex, affection, love and families.

IMO, I'd rather people say "these are the rules" to start with - with the understanding that there is a willingness to adapt and adjust as the relationships develop, than to leave things so open ended. IME, open ended = hurt feelings, anger, resentment, and ultimately, damaged relationships in the long run.

I'm much more comfortable knowing where I stand from the get-go.

IME, of course. Everyone is different. :)

[Derbylicious]

And sometimes what is not an issue for one couple might be a boundary for another couple - and no one realizes it until you're smack in the middle of it and it's too late.

Honestly I would rather go into a relationship where there are rules from the start, than find myself blindsided by "this doesn't work for me" when I'm already emotionally committed.

When my husband and I moved cross country, we lived with a relative and his wife for 6 months until we got stabilized, found jobs, and figured out what part of town we wanted to live in. I had asked about "house rules" up front and was told that there was no need for "house rules" because we were all adults and we were family and we'd deal with things as they came up. Except that as things came up, no one wanted to deal with them for fear of seeming ungrateful (our side) and resentment and feeling taken advantage of (their side). What were really little issues that could have been avoided by having a set of rules in place up front, wound up seriously damaging a family relationship that took many years to be made whole again.

I can only imagine how much more devastating that has potential to be when extrapolated out to intimate relationships, sex, affection, love and families.

IMO, I'd rather people say "these are the rules" to start with - with the understanding that there is a willingness to adapt and adjust as the relationships develop, than to leave things so open ended. IME, open ended = hurt feelings, anger, resentment, and ultimately, damaged relationships in the long run.

I'm much more comfortable knowing where I stand from the get-go.

IME, of course. Everyone is different. :)

Exactly :D

[MonoVCPHG]

And sometimes what is not an issue for one couple might be a boundary for another couple - and no one realizes it until you're smack in the middle of it and it's too late.

Honestly I would rather go into a relationship where there are rules from the start, than find myself blindsided by "this doesn't work for me" when I'm already emotionally committed.

When my husband and I moved cross country, we lived with a relative and his wife for 6 months until we got stabilized, found jobs, and figured out what part of town we wanted to live in. I had asked about "house rules" up front and was told that there was no need for "house rules" because we were all adults and we were family and we'd deal with things as they came up. Except that as things came up, no one wanted to deal with them for fear of seeming ungrateful (our side) and resentment and feeling taken advantage of (their side). What were really little issues that could have been avoided by having a set of rules in place up front, wound up seriously damaging a family relationship that took many years to be made whole again.

I can only imagine how much more devastating that has potential to be when extrapolated out to intimate relationships, sex, affection, love and families.

IMO, I'd rather people say "these are the rules" to start with - with the understanding that there is a willingness to adapt and adjust as the relationships develop, than to leave things so open ended. IME, open ended = hurt feelings, anger, resentment, and ultimately, damaged relationships in the long run.

I'm much more comfortable knowing where I stand from the get-go.

IME, of course. Everyone is different. :)

I second Derbylicious. Exactly!

[sweetie]

Or you can chose partners that you trust will make choices that honor the relationship and behave well. Even in the midst of NRE.

I am in total agreement with you here. I know there have been times in our relationship where issues have arisen between Sea and Tommy that had nothing to do with me. From an outsiders perspective, it could be said if I wasn't there, those issues would be moot. I have been a sounding board for both of them, and a mediator if that's what the situation called for. They have done the same for me in my respective relationships with each of them. Sometimes we hear what our partner(s) can miss.

At the same time, if I was a different personality, I could have taken advantage of those problems. I instead choose to step back and allow the two of them to work it out. If that means not physically being in contact for an "x" amount of time, then so be it. They are the core relationship, and for whatever reason that core becomes unstable, then it is much my responsibility as their's to give them time to work it out.

Having said that, Sea has also given Tommy and I time to work out our differences, and Tommy gives Sea and I time to work out ours. We are in this relationship together, so it's up to us to establish a way to make it work.

The only "rule" we have is complete honesty and open communication. We don't have to agree with each other, we do have to listen to how the other is feeling, and respect those feelings.

Asking for something, doesn't necessarily mean you will receive what you are asking for, but being able to ask and not worrying if someone in our relationship will be offended is huge. If we can't give what the other is asking, we say we can't, and state our reasons why. Again, it doesn't mean the others agree, but at least it's out there on the table for all of us to discuss, and eventually find a middle ground.

Like any relationship, it's about respecting each other, and not allowing issues to become the be all to end all of our relationship. We have found that if spend all our time discussing our relationship, we forget to live it, and appreciate it. But that just my HO.

[Ceoli]

And sometimes what is not an issue for one couple might be a boundary for another couple - and no one realizes it until you're smack in the middle of it and it's too late.

Honestly I would rather go into a relationship where there are rules from the start, than find myself blindsided by "this doesn't work for me" when I'm already emotionally committed.

For me, that issue isn't about not having a boundary, it's about not knowing what may come up. All the more reason to deal with that instead of setting up boundaries around it so that it doesn't need to be dealt with. Sure people may not always know what will come up when emotions develop, but people can certainly know how they handle such feelings when they come up. If I start feeling threatened by the developing feelings my partner has for someone else, I don't see setting up a boundary to not let that happen as actually solving the problem. If my partner is developing feelings that are uncomfortable for me, I'm going to let my partner know. And if he or she is a good partner, we would be able to work through it. If I'm setting up a boundary that sets limits on another budding relationship in order to preserve my sense of security, then I'm probably not secure enough to be letting my partner have other relationships at all.

When my husband and I moved cross country, we lived with a relative and his wife for 6 months until we got stabilized, found jobs, and figured out what part of town we wanted to live in. I had asked about "house rules" up front and was told that there was no need for "house rules" because we were all adults and we were family and we'd deal with things as they came up. Except that as things came up, no one wanted to deal with them for fear of seeming ungrateful (our side) and resentment and feeling taken advantage of (their side). What were really little issues that could have been avoided by having a set of rules in place up front, wound up seriously damaging a family relationship that took many years to be made whole again.

That situation seems to be more of a communication issue than a rule issue. Of course people who live together are going to have rules that enable the smooth running of the house. If those aren't explicitly agreed on or explicitly communicated, things come up. But I don't see that type of reasoning applying to a relationship my partner may be having with someone else. That would be like saying that a person who lives in someone else's house has to abide by the rules of my house even though I'm not there.


IMO, I'd rather people say "these are the rules" to start with - with the understanding that there is a willingness to adapt and adjust as the relationships develop, than to leave things so open ended. IME, open ended = hurt feelings, anger, resentment, and ultimately, damaged relationships in the long run.

I'm much more comfortable knowing where I stand from the get-go.

IME, of course. Everyone is different. :)



There is certainly a place for rules and I don't deny that. But it is important to examine why those rules exist. If the rule is that I can't go to a particular restaurant with my partner because that restaurant has special meaning to the primary relationship, I'd have serious reservations about how secure that other relationship is, and would probably end up tripping over some unsaid or unspoken or unrealized boundary at some point later. If I end up tripping over some unsaid or newly discovered boundary in a way that creates resentment that poisons the relationship, I would consider that more of an issue of insecurity than an issue of not enough boundaries set in the beginning.

[Joreth]

What were really little issues that could have been avoided by having a set of rules in place up front, wound up seriously damaging a family relationship that took many years to be made whole again.

I know this is a radical idea and all, but I would have just talked about the issue when it came up instead of letting it build to the point of resentment and anger. Been there, done that, really don't want the t-shirt.

As Ceoli said, house rules are not the same thing as relationship rules. However, pretty much everyone that I am friends with doesn't have "house rules" because they don't tend to invite people into their home that are likely to do things to damage it or disrespect the people in it. If I let you into my home, it means I trust you. Why would I let you in if I don't trust you? If I don't know you well enough to trust you not to track mud onto my carpets or terrorize my cats, I probably shouldn't be letting you into my home in the first place. If it turns out I misjudged you, well, I'd like to think that I'd catch that before you did something like driving a car through my living room and I'll ask you to leave. If it turns out you're a basically decent person but we have mismatched expectations, an open line of communication should be all that's required to solve that. If you don't want to communicate with me about a problem I'm having with how you treat my home, well, we go back to the first solution and I kick you out.

If a person honestly cares about his partner, is considerate and does things with his partner's best interests at heart, rules are unnecessary because he will want to be caring and considerate automatically. If he is not caring and considerate and does not have his partners' best interests at heart, a "rule" won't stop him from doing what he wants to do anyway.

As to the problem of needing time to see if the prospective partner is going to be problematic or not, I like to solve that issue by building a friendship with someone before dating them. I don't always do that, and quite often when I don't, those are the ones that blow up rather spectacularly.

One of the benefits of polyamory is that everyone comes with references. I can build a pretty good idea about how a prospective partner handles certain issues, how he will handle a breakup, and how compatible we might be by getting to know him AND his current and past partners. I can watch him and see how he interacts. I can check out his track record. This is a very good indication of what I can expect from him in the future and tends to answer all those pesky questions that these types of primary-protecting-rules are supposedly designed to protect the primary relationship from finding out the hard way.

With my current partner, we've been together for several years now and he has his own history of being caring and considerate of his existing partners' feelings. He has shown me time and again, before we ever started dating, that he has a very high standard of treatment of his partners. It is completely unnecessary for me to place restrictions on his behaviour with potential partners because I know that he will not get into a relationship with anyone who could "threaten" what he and I have together. He is interested only in women who have an equally high standard for how they treat their partners and metamours. I trust *him* enough to make decisions that will not harm me or his relationship with me, so I do not need to give him any rules as though he were a child who is not capable of deciding for himself who is toxic and who is respectful of his existing relationships.

If my relationship with someone is so fragile that another relationship has to have limits on it, dictating what their emotional entanglement should be before anyone even knows what it wants to be, before even having another prospective relationship on the horizon, then we shouldn't have an open relationship.

And if my new metamour actually has the potential to damage whatever someone and I have together, than she's bad news and we have way bigger problems than a few rules like "don't stay out past midnight" can handle.

As Ceoli has already said several times, this is not the same thing as setting personal boundaries, this is participants in an existing relationship setting up the structure of a yet-to-come relationship without the input of the yet-to-come partner.

[crisare]

I know this is a radical idea and all, but I would have just talked about the issue when it came up instead of letting it build to the point of resentment and anger. Been there, done that, really don't want the t-shirt.Well the sarcasm really isn't necessary. Yes, we should have talked. No, we didn't. For a variety of reasons. That was my point. Sometimes people *don't* talk when they should - for any number of what-seem-valid-at-the-time reasons. And then what are small things build into big things and then feelings get hurt and then relationships are damaged.

It's really easy for someone from the outside to say "you should have done X" but until you've been in the situation, you really don't know what you're going to do.

Which is why, as I said, rules of some kind help set a guideline for what's expected.

I am friends with doesn't have "house rules" because they don't tend to invite people into their home that are likely to do things to damage it or disrespect the people in it. If I let you into my home, it means I trust you. Why would I let you in if I don't trust you? If I don't know you well enough to trust you not to track mud onto my carpets or terrorize my cats, I probably shouldn't be letting you into my home in the first place. That's just rude and insulting. So you're saying tht because we had issues, we're the type of people to disrespect someone else's house?

This was a lot more than about "tracking mud on carpets" and had to do with personal boundaries and limits and getting deeply involved in each other's lives. But I'm not going to explain it further to you.

If you don't want to communicate with me about a problem I'm having with how you treat my home, well, we go back to the first solution and I kick you out.
Again, that's offensive.

As Ceoli has already said several times, this is not the same thing as setting personal boundaries,And perhaps we're talking at cross purposes about how Ceoli defines "rules" and how I (and some others in this thread) define "rules" ... but there's no need to imply that I and my husband are thoughless, selfish dolts who don't have the basic good manners to respect someone else's home. You have no idea what went on or what the circumstances were and I find your response to my example to be extremely offensive and hurtful.

[NeonKaos]

Crisare, you were the one who brought up the whole roommate-situation-as-an-analogy-for-relationships and Joreth was taking that analogy and expanding on it.

I saw her reply not as suggesting that you were a bad houseguest and deserved to be kicked out, but as pointing out ways that the quality of communication can be responsible for success or failure of any interpersonal dynamic. She used the houseguest terminology to explore how she might deal with a similar real-life situation of her own.

This is really NOT about YOU.

[AutumnalTone]

It's really easy for someone from the outside to say "you should have done X" but until you've been in the situation, you really don't know what you're going to do.


As she said, she's been in that same position before. She then offers what changes she's made in expectations since.


That's just rude and insulting. So you're saying tht because we had issues, we're the type of people to disrespect someone else's house?


She said no such thing. She offered hypotheticals to explain the reasoning behind her current approach to such things.

I believe you're reading far too much into what she's written.


And perhaps we're talking at cross purposes about how Ceoli defines "rules" and how I (and some others in this thread) define "rules" ...


That, I believe, is exactly what's happening. The sort of boundaries Ceoli refers to, as I read it, involved such things as "You're getting too attached to him so you can't see him more than once a week" and the like--the attempt to place restrictions on a new relationship--and not boundaries to maintain the existing relationship, such as "We still have to have our regular date nights and family activities" that aren't attempts to control the other relationship. It's the attempt to control the other that I find objectionable.


but there's no need to imply that I and my husband are thoughless, selfish dolts who don't have the basic good manners to respect someone else's home. You have no idea what went on or what the circumstances were and I find your response to my example to be extremely offensive and hurtful.

And I don't see where anybody implied anything negative about you and your husband. Indeed, I believe her underlying point was that you are reasonable folk and simply talking about issues would have resolved everything quickly and easily--and that when screening for house guests, that's exactly the type of people she'd allow in.

She can clarify her intent. I'm simply pointing out that I read her statements entirely differently. The hypotheticals weren't aimed at you, they were simply support for her approach to both house guests and relationships--that rules aren't truly necessary if everybody is reasonable and willing to communicate.

[crisare]

I put out a personal situation that actively happened in my life as an example - not a "hypopthetical" or an "analogy". I think I said enough in my example to indicate that this was a very hurtful time for me and for my husband.

To respond with : I am friends with doesn't have "house rules" because they don't tend to invite people into their home that are likely to do things to damage it or disrespect the people in it.Implies that because we had issues because we are the type of people who are "likely to do things to damage it or disrespect the people in it."

What I wrote wasn't a "hypothetical". It was a very real and very hurtful and very emotionally painful time in my life. It severely damaged relationships in my husband's family for several years.

IMO, Joreth's response, complete with sarcasm, was personal. It was hurtful. And it was unneccesary. Her (his?) points could have been made w/out the negative personal statements, whether addressed towards me or not.

[NeonKaos]

She can clarify her intent. I'm simply pointing out that I read her statements entirely differently. The hypotheticals weren't aimed at you, they were simply support for her approach to both house guests and relationships--that rules aren't truly necessary if everybody is reasonable and willing to communicate.

This is how I received it too.

I should remind folks that if someone criticizes something that has been said, or attempts to augment an anecdote by adding their own experience or perspective on a similar situation, it does not mean that they are making judgments about the person who said it, or are drawing incorrect conclusions from erroneous assumptions.

Crisare, perhaps this thread is not the appropriate venue to work out your frustration about what's going on in your life? This thread was started especially to generate discussion and debate, and that is precisely what is happening. You might consider starting a thread in "Life Stories and Blogs" if this is something you're going through and would like support for it.

I understand where your defensiveness is coming from, and I'm here to tell you that as an outsider, I don't see that you've been the recipient of a personal attack. I realize that when one is still in the process of working through a rough spot, that these types of things can SEEM personal. However, it is not realistic to expect everybody to tailor their messages in such a way as to walk on eggshells to avoid offending all possible sensibilities.

[crisare]

Crisare, perhaps this thread is not the appropriate venue to work out your frustration about what's going on in your life? You know ... I'm saying this quite calmly. It is very frustrating to feel that I was slapped at, and then to be told that I'm working out my "frustration about what's going on in my life" when you actually don't know a single thing about what actually *is* going on in my life. Ok, and I'm not saying that in anger or anything ... just as a statement of fact. It's a borderline insulting statement because it implies that my upset is irrational and driven from outside the forum, which it's not.

If you want to calm the waters, making assumptions about my life and what is happening in it, is not really the best way to do it.

This thread was started especially to generate discussion and debate, and that is precisely what is happening. You might consider starting a thread in "Life Stories and Blogs" if this is something you're going through and would like support for it.See above.

I realize that when one is still in the process of working through a rough spot, that these types of things can SEEM personal. See above.

The situation I referenced is something that happened 15 years ago and has since been resolved. Long resolved. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a valid situation at the time and there were many hurt feelings around it. The fact that it happened has played a large role in shaping my opinions and thoughts about relationships and "rules" ... and those opinions and thoughts are just as valid as anyone elses' here.

I understand where your defensiveness is coming from, and I'm here to tell you that as an outsider, I don't see that you've been the recipient of a personal attack.When one opens a post with the sentence "Here's a radical idea .. why not just communicate" when someone has said that a lack of communication can often be an issue ... that is, IMO, a borderline personal attack. If Joreth didn't want to put my back up from the get-go, then setting the tone for the post from the beginning with "Here's a radical idea" might not have been the best way to begin. Do you not agree?

However, it is not realistic to expect everybody to tailor their messages in such a way as to walk on eggshells to avoid offending all possible sensibilities.It is, however, realistic to expect that people would be sensitive when talking about sensitive issues; as in not starting their post with a rather sarcastic tone and then expect the rest of the post not to be interpreted as having a negative personal bent.

[NeonKaos]

You know ... I'm saying this quite calmly. It is very frustrating to feel that I was slapped at, and then to be told that I'm working out my "frustration about what's going on in my life" when you actually don't know a single thing about what actually *is* going on in my life. Ok, and I'm not saying that in anger or anything ... just as a statement of fact. It's a borderline insulting statements because it implies that my upset is irrational and driven from outside the forum, which it's not.

If you want to calm the waters, making assumptions about my life and what is happening in it, is not really the best way to do it.

See above.

See above.

The situation I referenced is something that happened 15 years ago and has since been resolved. Long resolved. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a valid situation at the time and there were many hurt feeligns around it. The fact that it happened has played a large role in shaping my opinions and thoughts about relationships and "rules" ... and those opinions and thoughts are just as valid as anyone elses' here.

When one opens a post with the sentence "Here's a radical idea .. why not just communicate" when someone has said that a lack of communication can often be an issue ... that is, IMO, a borderline personal attack. If Joreth didn't want to put my back up from the get-go, then setting the tone for the post from the beginning with "Here's a radical idea" might not have been the best way to begin. Do you not agree?

It is, however, realistic to expect that people would be sensitive when talking about sensitive issues; as in not starting their post with a rather sarcastic tone and then expect the rest of the post not to be interpreted as having a negative personal bent.


My point is that this is NOT ABOUT "people making assumptions about your life". You injected an example drawn from your life and now you want, I don't know, validation for it or something.

This is not ALL about YOU. Just because you had an experience that is relevant does not make the whole thread subject to stroking your sensibilities. So what if someone assumed something that turns out to not be part of your original experience? This is not ABOUT you. Furthermore, you are not the only one who has ever had a falling-out with someone over a living arrangement. We're discussing something that is relevant to ALL of us. It is obvious that this is a sore spot for you, even if it is 15 years after the fact, but if that's the case, don't throw it out as an example if you don't want someone to expand on it. You are not going to change anyone's style of writing. People are allowed to comment about what they would do if they were in the same situation, which is what Joreth did. All the stuff about how she "implied" that you're a bad person and a rotten houseguest is YOUR baggage - I don't know either of you and I didn't see that anything got personal until AFTER Joreth's post, and that was on YOUR part. No, no one here knows every aspect of your life, every minutiae of everything that's ever happened to you, and the vast majority don't care to know. No one knows everything that's going on in everyone's life, ever.

Really, give yourself a break.

Moderators, please assist in getting this thread back on track. I'm only SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, but I was enjoying the discussion before it turned into "You don't know what I go through".

[crisare]

All right then ... let's get this thread back on track:

From Joreth's post:
If a person honestly cares about his partner, is considerate and does things with his partner's best interests at heart, rules are unnecessary because he will want to be caring and considerate automatically. I think this is naive. Two people (3 people, 4 people, whatever) can be caring and considerate and still miscommunicate. Or one persons idea of what is considerate could be hurtful to another - all unintentionally.

Open communication and boundaries from the beginning are the only things that really make sense, IMO.

[AutumnalTone]

From Joreth's post:
I think this is naive. Two people (3 people, 4 people, whatever) can be caring and considerate and still miscommunicate. Or one persons idea of what is considerate could be hurtful to another - all unintentionally.

Open communication and boundaries from the beginning are the only things that really make sense, IMO.

FIrst, I feel bad that you feel as if you've been attacked in this thread. I weighed in as soon as I saw it to offer a different perspective on the matter, and I fear I didn't communicate clearly that I do sense your pain. I hope you understand that we mods do care about our peeps here, and not just in the abstract. We have to judge things as objectively as we can, while at the same time we feel the pain of those involved in conflict. We much prefer to allow people the chance to work out conflicts through continued communication, instead of trying to "fix" things through moderator action.

To reply to your post: I'll agree with the first part of that--open communication from the beginning is the only thing that really makes sense. If there is a miscommunication, the best way to resolve it is further communication--a rule won't clear that up. If there is an unintentional hurt, communication is the best to resolve that--a rule won't clear that up.

And I'm all for rules governing relationships in which one is directly involved, if one needs that structure. I only object to rules aimed at controlling a relationship in which one isn't directly involved. (And this is with the caveat that I know humanity is quite diverse and what works for some won't for others. While I may be horrified at the idea, I don't think poorly of the people who seem to need that kind of rules.)

I don't have a set of rules to follow to reassure my wife that I'm with her for the long haul. She's constantly reassured because I find things that provide her with that sense of security on a daily basis--that's part of nurturing this relationship that I value so very, very much. No rules can replicate that nurturing, as far as I can tell. It's just a natural expression of the relationship.

Likewise, I get daily indications of the regard in which she holds me--no rules necessary. We don't have any specific rules that we have to follow for our direct relationship, so the thought of trying to place rules on how the other interacts with somebody else is both foreign to me and quite horrifying.

Indeed, one of the principles that we live by involves helping support and nurture those other relationships. This wasn't even something that we decided to do in the abstract, it's just something that we did naturally. When I was involved with L, Curly worked to support that relationship the same she did to support her relationship with me. If any "other" relationship could be said to be threatening, it's likely that one. L and I have known each other for much longer than Curly and I. L and I have a child together from a long ago liaison--and Curly won't be bearing any children. If one looks at an "other" relationship as a threat, I imagine that one would loom as a very, very large, hairy monster (with big, dripping fangs!).

[Joreth]

SeventhCrow & YGirl both have it spot-on in their analysis of my intent. This is not about YOU, Cisare. You used your experience with a live-in situation as an analogy (I understand that it wasn't hypothetical, but it was still an analogy), and I expanded the analogy even further.

The "been there, done that" comment meant, as they have both already said, that I HAVE been in that situation, I HAVE experienced living with people who didn't communicate & let things build up until it became unfixable, and now I know better and I choose not to let my relationships get to that point again.

I also tend to use the word "you" in most of my analogies, not to point at a specific "you", but in the 2nd person literary sense. It's less formal than "one" or "someone" and last time I used my more objective, formal style, people thought I was mad. It seems no matter which way I phrase things, some people want to think that I'm making my comments all about *them*, when it has less to do with them and more to do with using a particular comment as a springboard to expand or illustrate my own ideas.

I could just break in here with no connection at all to anyone else's posts prior to my own, but I would think that would seem a little jarring and disconnected to those reading it. This is supposed to be a dialog, isn't it? Am I not allowed to hear what someone said, formulate an opinion on it or use it to lead into my own thoughts?

No, thinking that communication is the place to start for all relationship problems is not naive. What's naive is thinking that if a person has a deep insecurity or lacks communication skills, that making a rule about that person's behaviour will bypass any negative fallout that stems from that insecurity.

Of course people can have the best of intentions and still miscommunicate. But if you start with the idea that your partner loves you and wants the best for you, you are less likely to wander off into hurtful accusations and assumptions that your partner is willfully doing the wrong thing by you. SeventhCrow has it right - the solution to a miscommunication is not making a rule - that only stops the communication. The solution is more communication to clarify the original miscommunication.

I'll even give a personal example. I have a bad shoulder and a sleep disorder. When I lay in bed, I have to lay on my left side. I explain this every time I get a new partner where sharing sleeping space becomes part of the relationship. So, between my shoulder and my sleeping issues, sex is best for me during the day, not right when I get into bed.

Now, I had explained all this to my most recent ex-boyfriend. So we went for about a year with me getting into bed and turning on my left side, which, because of the side of the bed he preferred meant that I turned my back to him, and falling into an exhausted sleep late at night. I discovered later that he does not approach relationships from the point of view that his partners love him and want to do their best for the happiness of all involved. He thinks of relationships as a struggle (he uses the word "minefield" and "battlefield" constantly when discussing relationships). So, since he started with the assumption that I was not on his side, he took my turning to my left side as a sign that I was figuratively turning my back on him, that I did not love him, that I did not want to have sex with him, that I was merely tolerating him. He kept his suspicions silent for almost 2 years and then broke up with me over it 2 days before Christmas. I had absolutely no idea that my sleeping position bothered him at all, let alone as a break-up offense, and by the time I found out and explained - again - that it was because of my bad shoulder and I would be happy to switch sides of the bed if that'll make him feel better, he had already decided that I did not love him.

There are 2 problems here. 1) if he had started from the position that I did, in fact, love him and desire him, he would be less likely to jump to the conclusion that sleeping on my left indicated that I didn't want him and 2) if he had started to suspect this anyway, communicating his concern to me early on could have easily solved the problem. There are a million things I could have done to reassure him, from telling him, to making more of an effort to be affectionate earlier in the day, to switching sides of the bed. Passing a rule that said I had to sleep on my right side or have sex at night even when I'm tired would not have solved the problem since the problem was not actually that I slept on my side, it was that he did not assume the best of his partner and he did not communicate his needs and wants in a manner that allowed me to show him that I had his best interests at heart.

It has been said several times now by various people, including Ceoli, the OP, that we are not talking about personal boundaries for an existing relationship like "keep me updated" and "we should maintain our regular date night when you start dating someone new", we are talking about rules that an existing couple places on the behaviour of/with a new partner, possibly even a person who does not yet exist, such as "I don't want you to develop strong feelings for anyone else but me, so if you start dating someone new, you will be limited to the number of hours you spend with her even though you haven't met anyone yet and she isn't here to give her own input on how much time she wants to spend with you".

[Derbylicious]

It has been said several times now by various people, including Ceoli, the OP, that we are not talking about personal boundaries for an existing relationship like "keep me updated" and "we should maintain our regular date night when you start dating someone new", we are talking about rules that an existing couple places on the behaviour of/with a new partner, possibly even a person who does not yet exist, such as "I don't want you to develop strong feelings for anyone else but me, so if you start dating someone new, you will be limited to the number of hours you spend with her even though you haven't met anyone yet and she isn't here to give her own input on how much time she wants to spend with you".

So then it's just the sentiment behind the rules that's the problem. If a couple was to have a guideline saying that except for Saturday evening we need to be able to rely on each other to be there to get the day to day things of life done; that would be ok. But saying you're only allowed to see a new potential partner once a week because I'm worried about how it will affect me isn't? Seems to me that it all really boils down to the same thing and that it's only the wording that changes.

For example I do rely on my partner to be there to help me out with the day to day stuff of life and I do worry that if we don't have that time together that I will suffer for it. I'm not worried that his affection for me has changed but the stress of dealing with the day to day stuff of life while he is free to date someone as often as he wants would build a resentment in me which would be bad for us. So it does seem to me that it's all about the wording.

-Derby

[NeonKaos]

For example I do rely on my partner to be there to help me out with the day to day stuff of life and I do worry that if we don't have that time together that I will suffer for it. I'm not worried that his affection for me has changed but the stress of dealing with the day to day stuff of life while he is free to date someone as often as he wants would build a resentment in me which would be bad for us. So it does seem to me that it's all about the wording.

-Derby

That's a good example, Derby.

The difference is that, in the OP's position, it's like saying, "I want my husband to be there to help with the grocery shopping. I have no problem with him also helping his girlfriend with her grocery shopping, as long as he's there when I need him.

The other way, it's like saying, "If my husband were to help his girlfriend with HER grocery shopping, I would feel hurt/threatened/insecure/not able to think straight because grocery shopping is part of our quality time and I do not feel comfortable associating something that is "ours" with something he also shares with his girlfriend. Even if my groceries are all squared away."

[Joreth]

Derby:

When it comes to things like time contraints, which are a very real limitation on relationships, I try to find out if the upset over the time conflict is because it's a RELATIONSHIP that makes it upsetting, or if someone would be equally unhappy if the same time conflict was caused by a non-relationship issue.

It's not *just* the wording, it's about being able to have a say in how my relationship looks. YGirl said it very concisely and accurately, and I won't be nearly as concise but here's my response:

As an incoming new partner, if I were told that I could only have one day a week and that was non-negotiable, and that and which day it was had been decided before they ever met me, that would be a problem regardless of the wording. If someone I was interested in could not afford to share more than a handful of hours, one day week with me, I'd have to question his ability to be in any additional relationships at all. If your life is that full, perhaps adding another partner is not the best thing to be doing at this point in time. Now, if a new relationship just *happens* to work out to where that's all the time either participant WANTS out of it, then it's a functioning relationship that meets the needs of all involved. But if you tell me that one day a week is all I get whether anyone wants more or not and regardless of my own existing schedule, it doesn't matter what words you use, that's a problem.

But, as YGirl said, it's also not the whole problem. Having an obligation is one thing, having my boyfriend's wife tell me what my time spent with him will look like without any consideration for how I might want to spend that time, especially if it's that limited, is another and more like what Ceoli was referring to.

I can respect and understand a partner having obligations and responsibilities that pre-date a relationship with me, but there needs to be some manner of compromise and some method that allows me to contribute to my own relationship.

I live about 2 hours away from one of my partners, who is married, and they have regular Monday-Friday jobs. This quite naturally places some restrictions on his availability, some of which are non-negotiable. Just because I'm free on Wednesday afternoons and I feel I have the right to shape my relationships according to my needs doesn't mean I can demand he see me on Wednesdays when he has to work that day. He is available on the weekends, so I have to schedule my time with him around that.

But that also means that his wife's availability for non-chore quality time is also on the weekends. It would be unfair of me and stressful on them to expect that all his free time be given to me and the only time he has left for her is the time spent doing chores or sleeping. But, at the same time, it is not fair of them to insist that I not have any input at all in when and how often we get to see each other. Understand that I am not advocating that all the decisions be switched from the couple to the new partner - all good relationships require discussion and compromise and I'm just saying that I ought to be part of the discussion and compromising decisions, and that I should not be the ONLY one to do any compromising.

I am currently the new partner of a married man, and as such, I have some input into how my relationship with him looks and it is not dictated all by her or even by them prior to knowing me. Because she does not view me as a "threat", we often all spend the entire weekend together. Just because the other one of us is around doesn't mean it's not still quality time. Of course we each get our "alone" time too, but when you do not view your metamour as a rival, then the relationship is not zero-sum. She and I work together on conflicts, we talk to each other, and we spell out our expectations and our wants. If she wants a particular weekend to be Their Time, she explains that to me and we work out a compromise. Usually it means the following weekend he comes to visit me instead of me spending the weekend at their house, or I leave early on Sunday instead of late Sunday night, or we split the weekend, or I go visit them but we go to a movie that she picks out or something like that.

All of this can be done because 1) we communicate with each other, and 2) we start from the assumption that no one is a threat to anyone else, we are not rivals, we all want to work together and we all care about everyone else. No rule is necessary dictating when, how, and how often I can see him because of those 2 factors.

She/They did not prescript my relationship for me. In fact, when he and I started dating, we were both under the assumption that it would be really nothing more that "smoochy-friends" - good friends who sometimes make out at parties. But, it turned out that we had such a good foundation from our prior friendship (we've known each other for years before dating), that what the relationship wanted to be was to very quickly turn into a long-term, deeply emotionally intimate relationship.

It was a surprise to all of us, but in particular, they had never been in a poly relationship where they weren't both dating the same person. This was the first time he had a girlfriend that she wasn't also dating. So my relationship with him could have very easily been seen as "threatening" to her, if she had let it.

But, instead, when they agreed that I was acceptable for him to pursue even as a "smoochy-friend", they did not prescript my role as "smoochy-friend". They just opened themselves up to a relationship with me and let it find its own path. He and I just guessed that it would want to be "smoochy-friends", but we didn't write out any rules that said it *had* to be.

So the turn to deep, committed, intimate relationship was surprising but without the prescripted rules, it was allowed to happen with minimal drama. She and I talked about what a Relationship meant to us, where we saw things going, how we would handle various situations that were known triggers, what our communication methods were, how we defined various terms, and in the end, the only "rule" we have is to talk to everyone the moment we realize we have a problem with something. We try to remind ourselves that, when it comes to a matter of interpretation of someone's words regarding their intent, start with the interpretation that puts the speaker in the position of wanting to help, wanting to find a solution, wanting to be considerate, even if that person misunderstood or did something hurtful. Assume it was accidental and communicate the hurt kindly.

I don't use the primary/secondary model because I don't feel it adequately covers things. For instance, my other partner and I feel as though we have a "primary" connection, but we live 3,000 miles away (work constraints - we didn't always live that far away) and even all of our "new" partners that have come into the picture after we began dating think of us as "primary" in spite of the fact that we live apart, because of how important they know we are to each other and that we always consider each other before making any major life decisions (including taking new partners).

So I don't consider myself "secondary" to my married partner either, but many people would categorize it as such, because he and his wife share the day-to-day stuff and I don't, they have a much longer history, etc. I respect their longer history and the responsibilities they have built and share together. And yet, I still have input into how my relationship with him looks. I can still make requests of him, I can still factor them into my life-decisions and they now factor me into their life decisions (like work changes or moving), and we all are committed to the health and happiness of the respective relationships (his and mine, his and hers, mine and hers, and ours).

I can understand that I don't have the power to make decisions about their house, what they do with their money, or to overrule any plans they have together, and I can still expect to have a say in how my relationship with him looks, to be able to express my own feelings and wants and needs and expect to have them heard and considered, and to have some accommodation and compromise made for my sake as much as I would do for either of them. After all, I wouldn't dream of starting a relationship with him and saying that he has no say in when he gets to see me because I've decided that out long ago, even if he were not married and had no other partners, so it shouldn't be unreasonable for me to expect the same from him.

He is in a Relationship WITH me, I was not ordered out of a catalog nor hired to fulfill the job position of Girlfriend. As much as I respect their existing relationship for what it is, it is reasonable for me to expect them to respect my relationship for what *it* is, not to insist that the relationship be what someone else wants it to be.

And because they both *do* respect my relationship with him for what it is, we have no need for rules that they came up with to shape *my* relationship. We talk, we are considerate, and none of us believes that our relationships are so fragile that anyone else would be a "threat" to what we have each built with each other.

[redpepper]

Cirsare, I'm sorry that you have been put in a position of feeling threatened. I have noticed that happens sometimes on here when some posters forget that their use of language is not coming from a place of compassion. It's a shame, because often the message that they are trying to put across is useful and insightful, but unfortunately it is so laced with negativity to read, that it is lost on me.... Just so you know, I gave up reading the parts that make me feel like that....

For what it's worth I wonder sometime if it's because they are unable/willing to show some of their own emotions on here (make themselves vulnerable to others) and see everything as a philosophical debate and intellectualize topics to the point of forgetting human emotions are involved. So be it, just not my cup of tea as I prefer a balance... I come from a family of origin that is like that (all intellectuals but me... I'm the artist) and I am highly emotional. I often get intellectualized by them to the point of being shoved into a corner by my family and their un-compassionate opinions....they kinda gang up on me.... *sigh* working on what to do about that.

I find it really interesting that, in general, in my life, those that agree that rules/boundaries are fluid and useful, are usually the ones that are more settled into their relationships and are generally quite content and connected where they are at. I find that the level of trust between people in the relationship is heightened until the need for rules/boundaries has disappeared.... or at least become blurred or has become transparent.

I have found that people that don't embrace rules/boundaries as a fluid useful tool often get hurt, hurt others, get damaged self esteems, feel uncared for and unappreciated. I think it a very dangerous thing to just let it all hang out. Eventually, I have experienced, someone blows...it's kinda the no communication is communicating thing. Just don't see it working for the long haul unless you are the type of person that is never not anything but HAPPPPPYYYY or something :D:D:D

Of course when I talk about rules and boundaries I'm talking about realistic ones not "you need to be home at midnight for the rest of your life" but, "I would feel more comfortable if you came home at midnight on Saturday as I think I might be struggling with your new relationship and could need to cuddle up to you and have you tell me it will be okay."

[redpepper]

WOW Joreth... that post reads so differently than your others! I'm blow away (so is Mono,he wants me to say). Using your own personal life to convey ideas and you opinion works so great for me... I get it so much more. Thanks for that.

It's great that you have found relationships that work for you and are able to be fluid in them. Not everyone finds that however. Especially if Poly is new to them and they are struggling with mono rules that don't work for them anymore... Not to mention other family dynamics that are just not evident... transitioning to Poly is difficult for some and rules/boundaries are all they have at the beginning. I think the trick is to remember that they need to be fluid.

anyway, have to go,,,, so much more to say, I hate that :D

[Joreth]

some posters forget that their use of language is not coming from a place of compassion.

It is not possible for every individual here to know what every other individual will read into one's words. Many people develop the language use that they do because it has been effective in their interactions so far, so what one person says is not compassionate, others will not read that way and the poster himself may have very little reason to assume it will be taken in such a manner if his interactions with other people do not typically end with that reaction, or end with mixed reactions.

Since we cannot all write for every single individual reader, what might help keep things from getting out of hand is if we try not to assume that any individual poster intends offense or insult, especially if the words *could be* interpreted in a less hostile direction and are not something obvious like "Jane, you are a bitch", which really leaves no room for alternate interpretation.

[redpepper]

Since we cannot all write for every single individual reader, what might help keep things from getting out of hand is if we try not to assume that any individual poster intends offense or insult, especially if the words *could be* interpreted in a less hostile direction and are not something obvious like "Jane, you are a bitch", which really leaves no room for alternate interpretation.

Agreed, I can work on not being triggered for sure, if others agree to keep us emotional folks in mind... :)

[Joreth]

WOW Joreth... that post reads so differently than your others!

I'm glad you were finally able to take something away from my posts Redpepper, but I would like to suggest that, if you take a look at my word use, other than the anecdote, I am still using the same words and same grammar and same speech pattern. The only difference is that I used a personal anecdote, which can sometimes make it harder for readers to assume I am a faceless automaton with no emotions, even though my words are still as pragmatic as always.

Now, perhaps, with the understanding that I am actually a person with feelings and with relationships, and that I am speaking from a position of having experienced many of the things I talk about, it might be a little less likely for people to assume my intent is to be insulting or that it was a personal attack, especially when there is very little that is personal in what I write.

I had the exact opposite situation growing up, I was surrounded by people who were driven by their emotions and took everything personally whether it applied to them or not and whether it was intended to be personal or not and who assumed the worst of intentions from those around them. It was impossible to make progress on anything and impossible to prevent hurt and anger.

To use an anecdote, since that seems to be more effective, one Christmas I went back home to visit my family. My mother went to great lengths to make Christmas dinner be a Big Deal. It was just going to be me, my parents, and my sister, and we're really a more casual sort of family anyway. I grew up eating on TV trays in the living room watching the Primetime Lineup.

But mom wanted things to be "special", to which I and my sister thanked her every step of the way. But as it got closer to Christmas Day, my mom was getting more and more frazzled with all she had set for herself to do. Even having my old friends calling the house to say hi to me was starting to upset her and make her feel as though I didn't come to visit my family at all. Nothing I could say made her feel appreciated. I thanked her, I volunteered to help with chores, I said how much I loved her, and I pointed out pragmatically how many hours I spent with them versus how many hours I spent with friends and all the events I turned down because being with my family was a higher priority. Nothing worked, not the pragmatic approach and not the emotional approach, not the service approach, not the spending time together approach - explicit or implicit, verbal or non-verbal, she just did not hear me.

Finally, my mom got so upset over something trivial that she started yelling at everyone about how she had so much to do and she was stressed, that I said, thinking it would be helpful, that she didn't have to go to all that trouble. It was just the family and just being together was enough.

Well, that was absolutely the wrong thing to say because she completely did not hear "just spending time with you is enough", what she *heard* was "I don't appreciate anything you've done so far to make this holiday special and I don't want your efforts". I said nothing of the sort, I didn't use those words, and I intentionally stressed the "I'm just happy to be home" part. I even said, explicitly, "I appreciate everything you are doing, but I care about you and do not want you to feel stressed, so if you are taking on too much, you can scale it back and go more simple and it will still be special to me because I'm here with you".

So she burst into tears and accused me of not caring and ran out of the house. My dad and my sister then both turned on me for making her cry even though the start of the yelling was my mother actually yelling at my sister for not doing something or another.

The point here is that if someone insists on taking every statement personally and interpreting every statement in the most negative manner possible, there is a limit to how much changing of one's approach will be affective and sometimes it is more reasonable that the person doing the interpreting do the changing of approach.

Feeling attacked does not always mean one is actually being attacked and it is not *always* the responsibility of the one perceived as attacking to accommodate the one feeling attacked.

Sorry if this appears to beleaguer the point, but I posted it before I saw that Redpepper responded just above

[crisare]

I find it really interesting that, in general, in my life, those that agree that rules/boundaries are fluid and useful, are usually the ones that are more settled into their relationships and are generally quite content and connected where they are at. I find that the level of trust between people in the relationship is heightened until the need for rules/boundaries has disappeared.... or at least become blurred or has become transparent.

I have found that people that don't embrace rules/boundaries as a fluid useful tool often get hurt, hurt others, get damaged self esteems, feel uncared for and unappreciated. I think it a very dangerous thing to just let it all hang out. Eventually, I have experienced, someone blows...it's kinda the no communication is communicating thing. Just don't see it working for the long haul unless you are the type of person that is never not anything but HAPPPPPYYYY or something :D:D:D

Of course when I talk about rules and boundaries I'm talking about realistic ones not "you need to be home at midnight for the rest of your life" but, "I would feel more comfortable if you came home at midnight on Saturday as I think I might be struggling with your new relationship and could need to cuddle up to you and have you tell me it will be okay."Redpepper - thanks for your comments. I wanted to quote these three paragraphs because they so very closely echo my feelings and thoughts about the subject.

It's funny that in my past relationship we actually had very few rules/boundaries, whatever you want to call them. Those that we had were not carved in stone "This is the way you will behave" ... but were accepted by all to be "guidelines" to be discussed if necessary. Most of them revolved around his children, one of whom had developmental issues, and were in place to keep them healthy and happy and safe. But they were all, as you said fluid and useful tools to make sure no one got hurt.

At any rate, it's been an interesting conversation here - both from a standpoint of seeing how people understand the idea of "rules" or "boundaries" and from the perspective of seeing how some people communicate.

Joreth - my only comment to you at this point is that while I agree with you in this:Since we cannot all write for every single individual reader, what might help keep things from getting out of hand is if we try not to assume that any individual poster intends offense or insult, especially if the words *could be* interpreted in a less hostile directionI also believe that if one writes things in such a way as to be interpreted as harsh, it goes a long way to say "Hey I'm sorry - I was not meaning to be X (sarcastic, hurtful, rude, whatever)." rather than to turn on the person whose feelings were hurt and insist that they were being unreasonable or (as YGirl did) continue to insist that "this discussion is not all about YOU". And FWIW, I say that as someone who tends to speak rather bluntly and who has been accused online of being one of those "harsh" people who writes "pragmatically" as you call it. It took me a long time to realize that even though I was trying to bring strict logic to the topic, others were still being hurt by my words and the way I expressed myself - and whatever my intention, hurting people was wrong.

FWIW.

[redpepper]

I will come back and read everything since my last post after my sons Christmas concert, but I just wanted to add that I find that the addition of posters personal life means so much to me. It puts context into what is being said and makes me able to empathize and understand more... even be more willing to agree.

There seems to be two kinds of posters that are new to forums.... and this is a huge generalization and is also a thought in process, but interesting perhaps none-the-less....

One that is able to say all without feeling vulnerable or at least only a little vulnerable, but that seems to over ride their need to connect and get answers or prove a point of give an opinion...

The other seems to be those that are able to give advice, opinions, encouragement etc without injecting some of their own lives into their posts and therefore it seems emotionless and without context to me.

As I am very much the first kind of poster, I find it confusing and some times threatening to not know someones "story." It eventually makes my feelings of vulnerability seep in and I find it hard to post anything. I fight this usually and shrug it off as just a different way and that the person is just doing their own thing....
I get that sometimes it is hard to be open at first.... :)
anyway, off now. Just thought I would say that bit.

[Joreth]

Just to clarify, since we're now discussing communication techniques in the context of online forums, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not new to online forms - just this one. I've been online since the old BBS and IRC days.

I don't find it "hard to be open", I just don't always think my personal anecdotes are relevant. Anecdotes are not used in the scientific method as a form of data, although they may be a starting point from which to begin an investigation.

My journal, however, is where my anecdotes are relevant, and that's where I post the more personal information.

I have seen 3 main types of Original Posts made in the various online forums over the years. 1) I have a problem and I want to discuss my problem. 2) I have an interesting concept and I want to discuss the abstract. 3) I need some form of validation so I'm asking for all of you to post your personal experience with this situation.

Generally, I try to answer the question in the same vein it was asked - which category the original post is in largely determines the nature of my response (but not always).

When I want to regale everyone with exploits from my own life, I tend to do it in my journal, where I know that everyone there wants to hear about it, since they have to visit my journal or sign up to follow my posts. Since I don't lock my posts, and there is no subject too personal that I will discuss in that journal or in person if someone asks, it is often confusing to be told that someone thinks I am not "open" about myself. I just tend not to volunteer personal details because it's been my experience that not many people want to hear about them. I have very little internal filter and tend to give TMI, so it's safer if I stick to the objective and abstract in many cases. Plus, the anecdotes add to the length of my posts, which are lengthy enough as it is.

I had once made a journal entry all about my sleep disorder and the very personal experience I've had with it, and then made another post shortly afterwards recommending Google Health, which allows people to share their health records with others (whom they give permission to - it's not public). A debate about the "dangers" of the digital era ensued and in the process I found myself defending my "openness". Someone said something along the lines of "just because you choose to make certain details public doesn't mean you're not also hiding other things".

Considering the most prior post was about a sleep disorder and I have a whole collection of posts dealing with my sexual preferences and attitudes, and one of my more popular journal entries is a recollection of a string of relationships in which I felt vulnerable and how my partners worked with me (or didn't) to feel more secure, and I even have a Me Manual posted in my journal with all the relevant information about how I work and think and feel, I remain baffled how this person could think I'm not "open" about who I am online.

I feel like I'm repeating myself again and we're regressing to people reading only what they want out of certain posts and assuming the worst interpretation - if I don't share an anecdote, it must be because I find it hard to be open with people or afraid to be "vulnerable".

Sharing anecdotes doesn't make me feel vulnerable, it makes me feel like I'm rambling and taking up space when I can make my point more concisely and efficiently by leaving all those extraneous details out.

[Joreth]

it goes a long way to say "Hey I'm sorry - I was not meaning to be X (sarcastic, hurtful, rude, whatever)."

I've tried that - that was the point of my anecdote about my mother. When someone wants to assume I have the worst intentions, even an explicit apology is not heard and, frankly, I'm getting a little annoyed at always being assumed to have the worst intentions in my writing and not really feeling as though I did anything to apologize for but am still being demonized for being a heartless, cruel, insulting person while the person who jumped at the assumption wanders off with no reciprocal apology for leaping to false conclusions.

For someone with no compassion and no emotional capacity, even I have limits to how often I can be, what seems to be deliberately, misinterpreted before I get cranky about it.

(now THAT was sarcasm)

[crisare]

and, frankly, I'm getting a little annoyed at always being assumed to have the worst intentions in my writingRespectfully, if it happens to you all the time or it is "always assumed" perhaps you should take a second look at how you write.

I am not saying that to be rude or hateful. I say that as someone who has been in that position myself before.

I do, however, see a disconnect between what you keep insisting (that you are always responding from a non-emotional/scientific perspective) and the reality of your words (starting a post with the phrase like "Here's a radical concept ... " which is laced with sarcastic overtones).

Perhaps this part of the discussion would be better moved to the "how to participate on message boards" thread or even just left to die. I'd be fine with that as well. :)

I just think you're putting a whole lot of weight on "others are failing to understand how to communicate" and not enough on "perhaps my methods of communication are not as clear as I think they are".

[Ceoli]

I just think you're putting a whole lot of weight on "others are failing to understand how to communicate" and not enough on "perhaps my methods of communication are not as clear as I think they are".

Her communication methods seemed to be pretty clear to many others on this board, including me. I thought she made her points very well. And even adding the bit of sarcasm of "here's a radical idea" seemed pretty appropriate to me, since it seems that people continually choose not to communicate first then bring the problems of that lack of communication to forums like these. (and I wasn't referring to the specific anecdote you offered up, but to a large number of posts- on all sorts of forums- where it seems that "radical" idea just never gets applied)

[crisare]

nd even adding the bit of sarcasm of "here's a radical idea" seemed pretty appropriate to me,Ah. See, I think that when dealing with potentially painful or hurtful emotional situations, sarcasm is not generally terribly appropriate. Just, I dunno, a little quirk of mine.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

In the words of a pot of petunia's "Oh no, not again..."

Since we cannot all write for every single individual reader, what might help keep things from getting out of hand is if we try not to assume that any individual poster intends offense or insult, especially if the words *could be* interpreted in a less hostile direction and are not something obvious like "Jane, you are a bitch", which really leaves no room for alternate interpretation.

Agreed, I can work on not being triggered for sure, if others agree to keep us emotional folks in mind... :)
Post 46/47....I really thought things would have been resolved here...and I was about ready to shelf my Part2 indefinitely and without regret.

it goes a long way to say "Hey I'm sorry - I was not meaning to be X (sarcastic, hurtful, rude, whatever)."

I've tried that - that was the point of my anecdote about my mother. When someone wants to assume I have the worst intentions, even an explicit apology is not heard and, frankly, I'm getting a little annoyed at always being assumed to have the worst intentions in my writing and not really feeling as though I did anything to apologize for but am still being demonized for being a heartless, cruel, insulting person while the person who jumped at the assumption wanders off with no reciprocal apology for leaping to false conclusions.
This would seem to be a fair point...

and, frankly, I'm getting a little annoyed at always being assumed to have the worst intentions in my writingRespectfully, if it happens to you all the time or it is "always assumed" perhaps you should take a second look at how you write.

This would seem to be a fair point...


Perhaps this part of the discussion would be better moved to the "how to participate on message boards" thread or even just left to die. I'd be fine with that as well. :)

Simpsons already did it...and so did we...not all threads need to die like this if everyone's willing to work through miscommunications and continue with the subject at hand.


I just think you're putting a whole lot of weight on "others are failing to understand how to communicate" and not enough on "perhaps my methods of communication are not as clear as I think they are".
crisare: While I agree with some of your points, this discussion is also showing signs of Deja vu. Joreth's communications have been quite clear in this thread...including the part where she told you that no attack was intended or implied.


Now...perhaps we can get back to the actual subject of the thread before I have to get out the Part 2 project again....and for the love of all that may or may not be holy in accordance with everyone's belief or non-belief systems....don't make me do that....I was supposed to go home for xmas and enjoy my family...and I still have to pack! Have mercy!

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion:

[ImaginaryIllusion]

As Ceoli has already said several times, this is not the same thing as setting personal boundaries, this is participants in an existing relationship setting up the structure of a yet-to-come relationship without the input of the yet-to-come partner.
I've been continuously trying to wrap my head around this...and how the concept of non-prescriptive would work, in the context of a new partner entering into a relationship with at least one member of a couple...and keep running into a brick wall. (And I'm not talking about anyone here...this is my own mental brick wall that I'm having issues with)

A couple quick sidelines...

Or you can chose partners that you trust will make choices that honor the relationship and behave well. Even in the midst of NRE.
We should all be so lucky...and I was once. Hit paydirt platnum+gold+diamond mine 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. This will lead to RP's quote at the end.


The established couple may have rules that apply to THEIR relationship, but they shouldn't have rules that pre-emptively dictate how their OTHER relationship(s) unfold and evolve.

This strikes me as somewhat prescriptive in itself...and I'd challenge it on the grounds that my poly doesn't need to be the same as your poly. Unless this is more a generalization of the model rules would need to follow to qualify as non-prescriptive.

I can understand how rules like this might be unattractive to a single person entering any relationship. At the same time 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 (As I mentioned in an earlier post). 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.


For me, it's like being told, "I would love a relationship with you, but bear in mind that no matter what happens between us, I will always place this other person ahead of you and regardless of what feelings develop, our relationship cannot grow in ways that might possibly threaten my other partnership."

And this is precisely the thing I mean. The reasoning behind this may vary...but this may not always be about rules...but expectation management....and disclosure.
For me, it's the kind of thing that I would feel very unfair keeping from a prospective partner. They need to know what they're getting into. 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.
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. I fail to see a problem with this.
If the single parent were to bring in a new partner straight away...with only personal safeties for the kids to be followed, and they are very lucky, then things could all work out perfectly and everyone lives happily ever after. At least anecdotally I can think of far more situations where this tends to turn out badly.

I acknowledge that while there may not be an equality in these kind of situations, there is still a fairness...which may or may not be obvious. As with the prospect evaluating to date a single parent, a new partner to an existing couple has the choice to take those limits...which may still be personal, but will affect them and the budding relationship none-the-less...or walk.
I also can see how rules like those above wouldn't necessarily be attractive to the new partner. This is probably one of several reasons why unicorns are as rare as they are. Given the choice between dating a member of a couple who says "If it's you or them, I'll pick them" or going to even another regular single person who says "It's just you and I"...? Which way would most sane people probably choose?!



It has been said several times now by various people, including Ceoli, the OP, that we are not talking about personal boundaries for an existing relationship like "keep me updated" and "we should maintain our regular date night when you start dating someone new", we are talking about rules that an existing couple places on the behaviour of/with a new partner, possibly even a person who does not yet exist, such as "I don't want you to develop strong feelings for anyone else but me, so if you start dating someone new, you will be limited to the number of hours you spend with her even though you haven't met anyone yet and she isn't here to give her own input on how much time she wants to spend with you".
This was a good set of examples which I was missing in earlier parts of the thread...where the kinds of delineations might be perceived between 'ok' couple boundaries and 'not ok' restrictions on new partners.

I can understand that I don't have the power to make decisions about their house, what they do with their money, or to overrule any plans they have together, and I can still expect to have a say in how my relationship with him looks, to be able to express my own feelings and wants and needs and expect to have them heard and considered, and to have some accommodation and compromise made for my sake as much as I would do for either of them. After all, I wouldn't dream of starting a relationship with him and saying that he has no say in when he gets to see me because I've decided that out long ago, even if he were not married and had no other partners, so it shouldn't be unreasonable for me to expect the same from him.

He is in a Relationship WITH me, I was not ordered out of a catalog nor hired to fulfill the job position of Girlfriend. As much as I respect their existing relationship for what it is, it is reasonable for me to expect them to respect my relationship for what *it* is, not to insist that the relationship be what someone else wants it to be.

And because they both *do* respect my relationship with him for what it is, we have no need for rules that they came up with to shape *my* relationship. We talk, we are considerate, and none of us believes that our relationships are so fragile that anyone else would be a "threat" to what we have each built with each other.
This post overall was very well stated..and to me made a lot of sense...and I think put a lot of elements into perspective to the kinds of things a new partner might expect and desire to have some say in, and where the business of the couple might be rightfully outside their say.

Where I see a lot of consistency in those advocating prescriptionless relationships is that most seem like very experienced poly's... and at least in Ceoli's example, entering relationships with other established poly relationships. There has also been little mention of children...and while I'm not assuming they don't exist, it hasn't been apparent to me what consideration they would be given under that kind of format.

All of this will leads to RP's posts...

[ImaginaryIllusion]

I find it really interesting that, in general, in my life, those that agree that rules/boundaries are fluid and useful, are usually the ones that are more settled into their relationships and are generally quite content and connected where they are at. I find that the level of trust between people in the relationship is heightened until the need for rules/boundaries has disappeared.... or at least become blurred or has become transparent.

I have found that people that don't embrace rules/boundaries as a fluid useful tool often get hurt, hurt others, get damaged self esteems, feel uncared for and unappreciated. I think it a very dangerous thing to just let it all hang out. Eventually, I have experienced, someone blows...it's kinda the no communication is communicating thing. Just don't see it working for the long haul unless you are the type of person that is never not anything but HAPPPPPYYYY or something

Of course when I talk about rules and boundaries I'm talking about realistic ones not "you need to be home at midnight for the rest of your life" but, "I would feel more comfortable if you came home at midnight on Saturday as I think I might be struggling with your new relationship and could need to cuddle up to you and have you tell me it will be okay."
I'm not sure the boundaries here are too much different than some of the ones Joreth listed above...but the important distinction here I think are two fold:
One: again, lots of anecdotal evidence that people can get hurt. Not everyone is lucky enough, or keenly attuned enough to choose well consistently. And nothing about this says that it is necessarily the couples fault when things blow...it doesn't need to be about their problems...it can be the new person just as easily...it happens in mono relationships all the time.
Two: Fluid, dynamic... The boundaries don't need to be there forever, or in the same format. As with a single parent who might introduce a partner gradually to the family, eventually things may develop from "Don't discipline my kids" to "Just don't do anything that would get Social Services involved". Likewise as time goes on, the boundaries may be relaxed, or fade...particularly as trust is built between metamours so that they don't see each other as threats.



It's great that you have found relationships that work for you and are able to be fluid in them. Not everyone finds that however. Especially if Poly is new to them and they are struggling with mono rules that don't work for them anymore... Not to mention other family dynamics that are just not evident... transitioning to Poly is difficult for some and rules/boundaries are all they have at the beginning. I think the trick is to remember that they need to be fluid.

This is probably the most succinct statement about the value of rules that I'd like to echo here...
The idea that rules as above should be viewed as 'horrific' is a little off-putting for someone who is maybe less experienced with poly. Long term established couples will have a long history...and if just opening up what had long been a monogamous relationship they won't necessarily have the kinds of tools or outlooks that would make a prescriptionless relationship workable for them. If that was the only way to go...many could just as easily choose to remain mono...and wouldn't that be tragic.
It may take time for some of these things to develop...but nothing can develop without the opportunities to practice these skills. These may be the training wheels some people need to allow them to take the risk and try. As such, I think there is still a value in them for those who need them.

And kudos to those who are able to conduct their relationships without them.

[Joreth]

Respectfully, if it happens to you all the time or it is "always assumed" perhaps you should take a second look at how you write.

As I said in an earlier post, which apparently was not read, the reason why many of us have the current communication style is because it is what has worked most of the time in our experience.

Being "always assumed" in this case is happening here, in this forum, by the same people, when plenty of other people seem to manage to understand both my intent and the content without feeling as though I personally attacked them.

This does not imply that it is my writing style that is at fault but does suggest that certain individuals are reading things into my posts that I did not intend and might even possibly suggest that some people have decided from the outset that this is the motivation I must have and will therefore attribute it to everything I write.

[crisare]

might even possibly suggest that some people have decided from the outset that this is the motivation I must have and will therefore attribute it to everything I write.Argh. :) I'm very very hesitant to respond to this in light of ImaginaryIllusion's comments about us reaching a deja vu state.

But I would like to point out that I'm fairly new to this forum (although not to forums in general - as with yourself, I've been around since the days of BBS), and as far as I know this is the first time I've had interaction with you personally. I have no recollection of having discussed anything with you before and no preconceived notions about who you are or how you communicate. I based my response to your post on what you wrote and nothing further.

Honestly. I'm not pre-judging what you write or approaching your writing with any decisions about your motivation. I'm simply responding to what I read.

And seriously ... I really am done with this in this post. I'm not saying that to be snotty. I'll be happy to continue a discussion in PM or on another thread, but I don't want to derail this valuable thread any further. :)

[crisare]

This strikes me as somewhat prescriptive in itself...and I'd challenge it on the grounds that my poly doesn't need to be the same as your poly.
[...]
At the same time 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 (As I mentioned in an earlier post). 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.
[...]
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.
This all very much is in line with my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for putting it so succintly.

[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. I fail to see a problem with this.

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.

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, 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."

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 prescriptionless relationships is that most seem like very experienced poly's...

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.

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 (seriously, 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 to learn that fire 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. Hit paydirt platnum+gold+diamond mine 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 are 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 and in friendships and in business relationships and ... and ... 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 Pollyanna-ish (no pun intended).

[Ceoli]

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 and in friendships and in business relationships and ... and ... 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 Pollyanna-ish (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. (But then again, I've always held that having healthy poly relationships and having healthy mono relationships generally draw 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 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.

[Joreth]

it's like "look, 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 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.

But we're not talking about water wings in the pool before you learn to swim or training wheels on a bike. We're not talking about 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-prescripted-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 prescripted rules because these skills cover everything that the prescripted rules are supposed to cover.

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

Stop right there. Yes. 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 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.

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 and Slut.

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 over seas). 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 & poor communication - I had a lot of playing catchup 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 I and my prospective partner viewed relationships in the same way, not to insist that he do things this way with other people even 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 also meant for a very specific set of circumstances.

At the time, I was dating someone who started dating someone else and she was really not on board with the whole poly 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

But, for instance, the clause on breaking dates. That was put in there because he didn't actually realize that breaking a date was hurtful to the person you broke a 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 she'll 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 was not (really, 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 so 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 it is that 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 that 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 prescript 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 will want to look 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 for 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, this 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 that quote within a quote thing... sorry)

I totally understand this about "skill", which is why I am okay in my polyfi 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":rolleyes:

[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!

Although with the situation I was in, they'd 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 FWB. 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".

Then I became single, living 6 blocks away, and we talked a little about what their rules were, and 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, and 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]

And that would be the difference between prescripting and descripting a relationship - Describing the relationship AS-IS is saying "at this moment in time, we are a casual, FWB with limited emotional entanglement.

Prescripting is saying "from this point forward, the relationship will be a casual, FWB with limited emotional entanglement".

The problem on my end is not with the structure - FWB, casual, polyfi, 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, 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.

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

This thread is 8 pages long and 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.

[StitchwitchD]

I thought about this, came up with a list of my needs and what I can and cannot deal with in a relationship, posted in on LJ, felt empowered, decided that if I'm going to be in a relationship, it is MY relationship too, and I should be able to make MY rules as a pre-condition for the relationship, and re-phrased the list into theses rules:

1. Don't worry that I'm going to "steal your husband"- I really like being in a household with more than 2 adults, so it's much more likely that I'll end up spending so much time at your house that it makes more sense for me to just move in. I'm very willing to do tons of laundry, so you might end up thinking this is a good thing.
2. You can set boundaries, and draw some new lines as new emotional minefields are encountered, but overall boundaries need to get progressively looser, not more restrictive.
3. I cannot be a dirty little secret. We can discuss who to tell, who not to tell, we don't need to list our relationship status on facebook so people we went to grade school with can be shocked by our "lifestyle", you don't have to try to explain polyamory to my Dad, but I can't deal with living my life in the closet.
4. If you're going to veto me, do it before I get involved with your partner. If you need to think it over before you're sure, I can wait, but I cannot be in a relationship with possible retro-active veto hanging over my head like the Sword of Damocles.
5. We need to talk or IM or something, if anything is bothering you let me know.
6. Drama is bad, think things over before going off.
7. No relationship bonsai! Let it grow freely into whatever it's going to be, or don't bother planting the seed at all.
8. I get to love and be loved, and get to say so, and no one can freak out about this.
9. If/when the relationship gets labeled or that label gets changed, it will be an accurate descriptive label. If we cannot think of an word that accurately describes it, we will make one up. We will not mislabel K2 as a molehill to make it seem less scary.

[redpepper]

4. If you're going to veto me, do it before I get involved with your partner. If you need to think it over before you're sure, I can wait, but I cannot be in a relationship with possible retro-active veto hanging over my head like the Sword of Damocles.

Very good point. I never thought of that. We have always considered veto power before anything gets too deep, I hadn't thought of it in terms of a time limit. Interesting thought.

7. No relationship bonsai! Let it grow freely into whatever it's going to be, or don't bother planting the seed at all.

I love this! I am totally going to use this line. Thanks again :)

[Ceoli]

4. If you're going to veto me, do it before I get involved with your partner. If you need to think it over before you're sure, I can wait, but I cannot be in a relationship with possible retro-active veto hanging over my head like the Sword of Damocles.


If a partner has veto power, that's pretty much a deal-breaker for me.

[Ravenesque]

If a partner has veto power, that's pretty much a deal-breaker for me.

The same for me.

~Raven~

[redpepper]

Except if the person is TOTALLY DESTRUCTIVE AND UNSTABLE, as was the case I am thinking about in my relationship with my husband. He was so in love with her and she was using him up to the point he forgot his family... it was crazy! (This was in our early days of Poly)

I told him my concerns and he chose to end it. If he had his reasons and things could be negotiated, then fine, I am willing to listen, but we had done that and he was vaccant and not able to participate in our family. To me, when kids are being affected, that warrants veto power.

I have the utmost respect for my husband and his choices in people he has in his life. I always make sure to give him lots of space to explore....

I just thought I better say this as veto power should never be taken lightly or be a power and control thing... to me its meant to preserve our primary relationship because of our child(for want of a better term) as far as I'm concerned...

Actually, come to think of it I never knew the term until after this situation.

[Ravenesque]

I told him my concerns and he chose to end it.

This sounds different to me than veto.

As I interpret it, veto is where a partner overrides the other partner regardless of what they would have or have already chosen. Much as the President can override Congress.

Discussing, weighing pros and cons (including a partner's concerns) and arriving at a choice seems quite different to me.

~Raven~

[redpepper]

hm, we had a thread way back this spring discussing this.... perhaps a new thread?

[Ceoli]

I think preserving the primary relationship is definitely very important, but I don't see vetos as a constructive way to preserve them. Listening to a partner's concerns and discussing them definitely seems constructive. But a veto wouldn't address the concerns for me and would make me feel less secure about the relationship.

[redpepper]

Because of the veto (if I can call it that as I expressed concerns that he took very seriously, which lead to him deciding to end it) we were able to re-focus on one another and our family. We gained prospective, and prioritized. He even thought of trying again with her to see if it helped having some time away.... he realized he had been completely delusional and that she couldn't offer him or us what he/we were looking for.

I can see that this is a different perspective than perhaps she may of come from. She was the one being vettoed. That totally sucked for her for sure... she didn't get it. She took it out on me and it meant the end of the relationship I had with her boyfriend. They both thought he was a wuss and that I was a control freak. To bad really, cause that is not how it went down.

It never was resolved, but I still talk to the boyfriend every now and then. What it boiled down to was that they are more of the open/swinger variety of poly and we are not... different strokes kind of thing. We just had a different idea about where it was going. He was in love with her and she was not at all. She used him for that in my opoinion... where as she just thought it was fun to fuck him and wasn't it cute that he was in love with her.... hahaha... lalalala. :p

[StitchwitchD]

I'm okay with a partner having veto power before the relationship starts- I wouldn't want to share a partner with someone I didn't like, or someone who was bat shit crazy. So, I can understand wanting to discuss it, ask questions, go over STD status/safe sex guidelines, etc, and I can understand the non-involved person being more practical and thoughtful about it than the 2 people who are looking at each other all googly-eyed.

[Ceoli]

I'm okay with a partner having veto power before the relationship starts- I wouldn't want to share a partner with someone I didn't like, or someone who was bat shit crazy. So, I can understand wanting to discuss it, ask questions, go over STD status/safe sex guidelines, etc, and I can understand the non-involved person being more practical and thoughtful about it than the 2 people who are looking at each other all googly-eyed.

If my prospective partner needed veto power from another partner in order to ensure good judgements on his or her behalf, I wouldn't trust their judgement enough to get involved with them in the first place.

[Ravenesque]

If my prospective partner needed veto power from another partner in order to ensure good judgements on his or her behalf, I wouldn't trust their judgement enough to get involved with them in the first place.

Perfectly stated.

[StitchwitchD]

If my prospective partner needed veto power from another partner in order to ensure good judgements on his or her behalf, I wouldn't trust their judgement enough to get involved with them in the first place.

It's not just a matter of good judgement- if this new person is going to be spending time in their house, give them access to Google calender (and vice-versa), and generally involved in their lives, then yes, it's important that everyone be able to tolerate each other.

Otherwise, if the primary just can't stand being around the new person for personality reasons (not that the new person is a bad partner, just they don't click, wouldn't want to hang out together, grate on each other's nerves) then that would limit the relationship to the extent that I'd probably rather not bother.

[Ceoli]

It's not just a matter of good judgement- if this new person is going to be spending time in their house, give them access to Google calender (and vice-versa), and generally involved in their lives, then yes, it's important that everyone be able to tolerate each other.

Otherwise, if the primary just can't stand being around the new person for personality reasons (not that the new person is a bad partner, just they don't click, wouldn't want to hang out together, grate on each other's nerves) then that would limit the relationship to the extent that I'd probably rather not bother.

I just don't see veto power as a necessary thing to create conditions that prevent such things from happening. All of that can be handled with discussion and communication. I think veto power gets even messier when you start to have to veto your partner's feelings for another person because you don't get along with the other partner. If there's an issue of my partner choosing other partners that I don't get along with, then that's something that needs to be dealt with. I don't see vetoing such a relationship as effectively dealing with the issue. Again, it comes down to trusting that my partner will make the right choices to honor everyone involved. I'm not going to dictate how my partner should act or not act on their feelings. I'll provide input and discuss my concerns, but I would never want to be the one to make the decision for my partner.

[Ravenesque]

It's not just a matter of good judgement- if this new person is going to be spending time in their house, give them access to Google calender (and vice-versa), and generally involved in their lives, then yes, it's important that everyone be able to tolerate each other.

Otherwise, if the primary just can't stand being around the new person for personality reasons (not that the new person is a bad partner, just they don't click, wouldn't want to hang out together, grate on each other's nerves) then that would limit the relationship to the extent that I'd probably rather not bother.

I can tell some values differ here. My preference is non-hierarchical. Next it is not necessary for my loves to be chums. Logically I cannot expect each of my loves to have the same tastes in people I do.

I can see where this might matter in making the decision for all involved to live under the same roof but not beyond that. Otherwise they don't have to see each other regularly if they do not wish to. A poly relationship consists of fully realized sets. And hopefully fully realized people.

~Raven~

[StitchwitchD]

I guess I was going on the assumption that primary partners live together, and that thus the secondary partner would either end up spending some time around the primary, or schedules would have to be manipulated specifically to avoid them having to be around each other.

So, I'd prefer being vetoed before things got involved than try to have a relationship with someone whose wife couldn't stand being around me.

I don't really have much opinion on vetoes either way- I've heard about people who would just ignore their partner's vetoes while vetoing anyone their partner was interested, and I've heard of people sabotaging their partner's secondary relationship without using a veto. I've been in a situation where his wife was obviously uncomfortable with my relationship with him, so I ended the aspects of it that made her uncomfortable, intending it to be a temporary thing until she worked through her feelings and they resolved some issues, and eventually it became clear to me that she wasn't going to be comfortable with me having a sexual relationship with him under any conditions that would work for me. It would have been much less painful if she'd just vetoed me to begin with, but at least I learned form the experience.

[Ravenesque]

I guess I was going on the assumption that primary partners live together, and that thus the secondary partner would either end up spending some time around the primary, or schedules would have to be manipulated specifically to avoid them having to be around each other. ]

Though I don't subscribe to the hierarchical model of primary,secondary,tertiary etc, I have encountered other poly people who do, yet cohabitation was not a characteristic inherent to their primary relationships.

It's interesting how varied polyamorous people can be even in this.

So, I'd prefer being vetoed before things got involved than try to have a relationship with someone whose wife couldn't stand being around me.

I don't really have much opinion on vetoes either way- I've heard about people who would just ignore their partner's vetoes while vetoing anyone their partner was interested, and I've heard of people sabotaging their partner's secondary relationship without using a veto. I've been in a situation where his wife was obviously uncomfortable with my relationship with him, so I ended the aspects of it that made her uncomfortable, intending it to be a temporary thing until she worked through her feelings and they resolved some issues, and eventually it became clear to me that she wasn't going to be comfortable with me having a sexual relationship with him under any conditions that would work for me. It would have been much less painful if she'd just vetoed me to begin with, but at least I learned form the experience.

You did say you learned from that experience and based on the signs were able to make a decision.

I guess it comes down to personal preference whether to deal with uncomfortable emotions and situations, learning, gaining skills and growing from the experience or avoid such situations and place relationship decisions in the hands of others.

~Raven~

[StitchwitchD]

You did say you learned from that experience and based on the signs were able to make a decision.

I guess it comes down to personal preference whether to deal with uncomfortable emotions and situations, learning, gaining skills and growing from the experience or avoid such situations and place relationship decisions in the hands of others.

~Raven~

Yes, I learned from my mistakes, which means I won't do that again.

Thinking back, the big mistake was that he started getting physical before we'd actually talked about the possibility of having a sexual relationship...So, by the time I got the chance to sit down and talk to both of them about it, I was having a hard time thinking about anything other than how I wanted to get naked with him ASAP, and if she'd said "You can screw my husband, but only outside in January on a snowbank when it's -10, and you both have to be wearing Jayne hats.", I would have been okay with that.

I'm not sure why she didn't object at that point, because I did tell her I tend to get emotionally involved, and that it was even more likely since I was already so close to him- and I thought she knew that I'd been interested in him for a long time, since there'd been that time a couple years before that she, I and a friend who'd also had sex with him were all hanging out, and I'd asked them really detailed questions about what he was like in bed- but she later pointed out that while we were having that conversation, she was getting an incredible back rub from the friend's boyfriend, so she wasn't exactly thinking straight herself.

So, what we should have done was all go out to Perkins and talked about it in detail when no one's back or front was being rubbed.

[Ravenesque]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]I'm not sure why she didn't object at that point, because I did tell her I tend to get emotionally involved, and that it was even more likely since I was already so close to him- and I thought she knew that I'd been interested in him for a long time, since there'd been that time a couple years before that she, I and a friend who'd also had sex with him were all hanging out, and I'd asked them really detailed questions about what he was like in bed- but she later pointed out that while we were having that conversation, she was getting an incredible back rub from the friend's boyfriend, so she wasn't exactly thinking straight herself.

So, what we should have done was all go out to Perkins and talked about it in detail when no one's back or front was being rubbed.

It sounds like she made a decision and then had second thoughts. "I wasn't thinking clearly" statements are suspect. But I'm sorry you had a painful experience.

~Raven~

[StitchwitchD]

It sounds like she made a decision and then had second thoughts. "I wasn't thinking clearly" statements are suspect. But I'm sorry you had a painful experience.

~Raven~

I think they figured that since my ex had just left me, that I was on the rebound, and it'd just be friendly fun, and that when some time had passed and I was emotionally ready for a real relationship, I'd find some nice guy, fall in love, and be all coupled up, and everyone would be happy.

Shortly after I offered to take a break from him, I did meet a nice guy who is in a poly relationship that works much better with my rules, which made the first couple feel better, as if having one relationship that is going well erased all the pain from the one that ended.

[marksbabygirl]

I have just read through this entire thing - and it has been extremely helpful in helping me make some mental adjustments.

Thank you for putting this in the 'master list of threads' as I don't know if I would have found it otherwise... :D

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

Thanks for bumping this thread! It is really interesting. Hopefully this thread isn't dead, and we can continue the discussion?

I think preserving the primary relationship is definitely very important, but I don't see vetos as a constructive way to preserve them. Listening to a partner's concerns and discussing them definitely seems constructive. But a veto wouldn't address the concerns for me and would make me feel less secure about the relationship.
I think this is a very logical way of looking at it, but I wanted to add that "veto" is not always something that exists because one partner gave it to the other. If my husband was unhappy because of someone I was dating, and I believed that ending the relationship would make him happier, I would end it. I haven't given him veto power, but he has it all the same. However, I wouldn't end it with my bf just because my husband was unhappy, because after a year together, I am too invested in that relationship. So his "veto" on that one has expired.

I can see why people would not want to date someone whose partner has a veto, because having a big hammer of NO! permanantly threatening your relationship would be awful. But I can just as easily imagine an awful situation where the partner can't veto each other because they just don't care enough about the other's feelings. Neither of those situations sounds optimal to me, so I don't think the presence or lack of the veto is that important to me. The important issue is why there is a veto or lack of it, and (of course) what are the people like?

I'd rather date someone who has a happy, stable, confidently open primary relationship with veto power, than an awkward, drama-prone one without it.

But going back to the original discussion - prescriptive vs descriptive - I'd like to add a third option as a middle way: predictive. I am open to the idea that a relationship can develop however it wants, but at the same time, some things are just more likely than others because of what I want, how I live and my current relationships. Dating in that purely "descriptive" way is a little too hands off for me. In some ways, it would seem unfair of me to tell a prospective partner that the relationship was free to go anywhere at all, because that might lead them to think certain outcomes are more likely than they actually are. So although I do not prescribe how new relationships are allowed to develop, I do let people know how they are likely to develop. And no, I don't always get my predictions right!

I find it sad because I think it speaks to a fundamental problem in the primary relationship--and I have to wonder why'd they'd even consider adding other people to their lives when their primary relationship isn't very strong. Look, folks, if your existing relationships aren't good--and that means functional and strong on every level--then adding more relationships is not a wise thing to do!
I've seen this attitude a lot in the poly community, and wanted to speak up for the "prescribers", as I used to be one. If you took this attitude to its logical conclusion (any desire to limit further relationships shows instability in the primary relationship) then it would mean monogamy is fundamentally disordered. Having boundaries in place in a relationship doesn't mean that the relationship "isn't very strong", or only poly people would have strong relationships.

Swingers generally say that romantic love outside of their relationship would be a betrayal, whereas of course, polyamorists generally do not. It stands to reasons that there would be a whole spectrum of relationships that are in between. And I don't think any relationship that appears anywhere on that spectrum is necessarily stronger or weaker than any other.

[Ceoli]

I think this is a very logical way of looking at it, but I wanted to add that "veto" is not always something that exists because one partner gave it to the other. If my husband was unhappy because of someone I was dating, and I believed that ending the relationship would make him happier, I would end it. I haven't given him veto power, but he has it all the same. However, I wouldn't end it with my bf just because my husband was unhappy, because after a year together, I am too invested in that relationship. So his "veto" on that one has expired.

What you're describing to me doesn't sound like veto, because you're the one making the decision about your relationship, not your husband. It definitely sounds entirely reasonable to want to end a relationship that is making your husband unhappy. We make choices like that in our lives and relationships all the time.

I'd rather date someone who has a happy, stable, confidently open primary relationship with veto power, than an awkward, drama-prone one without it.

Personally, I don't see it as an either/or situation. There are partners who have stable confidently open primary relationships without vetoes. From my point of view, a primary relationship that does have veto doesn't feel stable to me, so I'm not going to get involved in that. (It may be stable for them, but that's their relationship.) And I avoid the awkward drama-prone relationships regardless, even if there was no other partner involved.

But going back to the original discussion - prescriptive vs descriptive - I'd like to add a third option as a middle way: predictive. I am open to the idea that a relationship can develop however it wants, but at the same time, some things are just more likely than others because of what I want, how I live and my current relationships.Dating in that purely "descriptive" way is a little too hands off for me. In some ways, it would seem unfair of me to tell a prospective partner that the relationship was free to go anywhere at all, because that might lead them to think certain outcomes are more likely than they actually are. So although I do not prescribe how new relationships are allowed to develop, I do let people know how they are likely to develop. And no, I don't always get my predictions right!

For me, being descriptive takes into account all the factors that exist in the here and now that have an affect on the development of the relationship. Many times, those factors involve the balance of other relationships. Many times those factors involve the balance of other things, such as jobs, kids, volunteering at the homeless shelter, living on another continent or another city, etc. To me, looking at a relationship descriptively doesn't mean that it is a relationship that is completely free to develop without boundaries or or that anything can happen. For me, it means that the boundaries that are there are reasonable and reality based, and not based upon pre-decided limits designed to protect the security of the existing relationship. For me, if my involvement needs to be limited based upon their security, then I don't see their relationship as secure enough for me to be involved. If my involvement is limited by time, distance, previous commitments, etc, that sounds entirely reasonable to me.

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

What you're describing to me doesn't sound like veto, because you're the one making the decision about your relationship, not your husband. It definitely sounds entirely reasonable to want to end a relationship that is making your husband unhappy. We make choices like that in our lives and relationships all the time.
But it does, effectively, amount to a veto. It may be my choice, but even in relationships with explicit veto the vetoed partner has to chose whether or not to comply with the veto. I wouldn't react well if my husband just said "END IT!!!!" because that isn't how our relationship works. But because I love him so much, I am sensitive to his needs and feelings and that means he has the power to decide that one of my relationships should end. I didn't give him that power, but he has it and we can't not have it. So the "veto" we have is a result of the strength of our commitment to each other.

On the other side of the spectrum, my bf does not have that power, because our relationship is just not stable or committed enough. He isn't (currently) central to my decision making the way that my husband is, so I wouldn't stop dating someone just to make him happier, (and neither would he!) (Of course, we'd take eachother's feelings into consideration in the way that you describe to a certain extent - we do care about each other!)

Personally, I don't see it as an either/or situation. There are partners who have stable confidently open primary relationships without vetoes.
Absolutely! That wasn't my point. My point was that the presence or lack of a veto is not really a factor in how stable the relationship is or how stable an additional relationship might feel. Different couples might have different reasons for having or not having veto power, and projecting our assumptions about why they do/do not might not always lead to accurate conclusions.

For me, if my involvement needs to be limited based upon their security, then I don't see their relationship as secure enough for me to be involved. If my involvement is limited by time, distance, previous commitments, etc, that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
What if the boundaries/limits are there because they both just want them to be there? Or because that is just how their relationship naturally developed? Assuming that certain boundaries indicate a lack of relationship security seems a little poly-supremicist to me! There isn't a connection between how open your relationship is and how stable it is. As I said in my earlier post, there is a huge spectrum from monogamous, life-long, sexually/emotionally exlusive relationships to completely open polyamory. I don't think it is fair to judge people's relationships as unstable just because they aren't where you are on that spectrum. It's a perfectly valid reason not to date them, of course, which is why I don't date people who want monogamous commitment.

[Ceoli]

But it does, effectively, amount to a veto. It may be my choice, but even in relationships with explicit veto the vetoed partner has to chose whether or not to comply with the veto. I wouldn't react well if my husband just said "END IT!!!!" because that isn't how our relationship works. But because I love him so much, I am sensitive to his needs and feelings and that means he has the power to decide that one of my relationships should end. I didn't give him that power, but he has it and we can't not have it. So the "veto" we have is a result of the strength of our commitment to each other.

On the other side of the spectrum, my bf does not have that power, because our relationship is just not stable or committed enough. He isn't (currently) central to my decision making the way that my husband is, so I wouldn't stop dating someone just to make him happier, (and neither would he!) (Of course, we'd take eachother's feelings into consideration in the way that you describe to a certain extent - we do care about each other!)

To me, if the choice is being made by me, then it's not a veto. It may have the same result, but for me, I consider it very important who is making the choices. I prefer partners who make choices themselves (even of those choices are to put someone else ahead of me) rather than partners who have their other partners make choices for them.

Also, what you're describing to me sounds a lot like how I define my primary relationships in life. My current primary partner is so because she is someone I consider majorly when making decisions that might affect us. (In that way, it's perfectly possible to have more than one primary partner.)


Absolutely! That wasn't my point. My point was that the presence or lack of a veto is not really a factor in how stable the relationship is or how stable an additional relationship might feel. Different couples might have different reasons for having or not having veto power, and projecting our assumptions about why they do/do not might not always lead to accurate conclusions.

Sure. But my choice is still not to get involved with people who live in such arrangements because of the affect it has on the security of my relationship. I prefer people who solve things with communication rather than veto rules. For me, I don't see vetoes as necessary if partners communicate well, good at choosing other partners and are basically decent to each other. I would take that over a veto any day.


What if the boundaries/limits are there because they both just want them to be there? Or because that is just how their relationship naturally developed? Assuming that certain boundaries indicate a lack of relationship security seems a little poly-supremicist to me! There isn't a connection between how open your relationship is and how stable it is. As I said in my earlier post, there is a huge spectrum from monogamous, life-long, sexually/emotionally exlusive relationships to completely open polyamory. I don't think it is fair to judge people's relationships as unstable just because they aren't where you are on that spectrum. It's a perfectly valid reason not to date them, of course, which is why I don't date people who want monogamous commitment.

I'm not sure what you're defending here because I'm not talking about monogamous couples or couples who have other types of open arrangements. I don't see monogamy as less secure than polyamory nor have I said or implied that. Monogamy is great for lots of people. And other forms of non-monogamy are great for other people. If setting huge boundaries works for that couple, great. It doesn't work for me. If they have those boundaries in place, then chances are they wouldn't be happy with me and I wouldn't be happy with them. Partially because they are solving issues in a very different way than I solve them. I prefer to solve things with communication rather than rules.

I'm not judging their relationship. I'm judging what kind of relationship is right for *ME*. I have no desire to get into serious relationships people who pre-set limits on my relationship based upon preserving some kind of set-up in their other relationship. That's not the way I do poly nor is it the way my partners do poly. Now, I have no problem dating or playing with people who set limits like that, but I won't be expecting a serious commitment from that. I only commit to people who are willing to equally commit to me.

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

To me, if the choice is being made by me, then it's not a veto. It may have the same result, but for me, I consider it very important who is making the choices. I prefer partners who make choices themselves (even of those choices are to put someone else ahead of me) rather than partners who have their other partners make choices for them.
But it's always their choice, surely? They choose whether or not to comply with the veto, and I expect they chose to have the veto in place to begin with as well, just as we choose whether or not to put a partner's needs ahead of a new relationship.

These two scenarios...

A: "I would never date someone if that made you unhappy."
B: "Thank you, darling."

B: "Would you continue to date someone if it made me unhappy?"
A: "Of course I wouldn't, darling."


...dont seem that different to me. The second situation could be described as a veto arrangement. But really, it isn't that different from the first, which is the situation you say that you and I are in.

I prefer people who solve things with communication rather than veto rules. For me, I don't see vetoes as necessary if partners communicate well, good at choosing other partners and are basically decent to each other. I would take that over a veto any day.
Why does having a veto arrangement preclude communication, basic decency and good decisions? Why would you assue that having a veto in place means that the couple will use that to solve things and never use communication?

I'm not sure what you're defending here because I'm not talking about monogamous couples or couples who have other types of open arrangements. I don't see monogamy as less secure than polyamory nor have I said or implied that.
As I said before, I'm taking the idea that boundaries/rules/vetoes etc show an instability in the primary relationship to its logical conclusion - that the more boundaries a relationship has, the less secure it is.

If setting huge boundaries works for that couple, great. It doesn't work for me. If they have those boundaries in place, then chances are they wouldn't be happy with me and I wouldn't be happy with them. Partially because they are solving issues in a very different way than I solve them. I prefer to solve things with communication rather than rules.
Do you really think all couples with rules and boundaries never solve their issues by communicating? How do you think the rules and boundaries got there in the first place?

I'm not judging their relationship.
Isn't implying that their relationship is insecure and lacks good communication because it has a rule in place that you wouldn't want quite judgemental?

I have no desire to get into serious relationships people who pre-set limits on my relationship based upon preserving some kind of set-up in their other relationship.
As I said before, what if the pre-set limits are there because they just want them to be there? Preserving "some kind of set up" is not the only reason why someone might choose a more "prescriptive" relationship. I've known plenty of people in poly who just don't want more than one primary style relationship, and so they take steps to avoid it happening. That might make them an unsuitable dating prospect for you, but I don't think it is fair to make all these assumptions about their relationship and how and why it works.

I'm not arguing that you or other anti-vetoers should start dating these people, I just think there is a lack of understanding here about how and why different people do poly.

[redpepper]

I am finding this very interesting, this conversation.

Having attempted a veto before in my relationship and it ending up being a decision that PN made himself I think I know a bit about it. I have come to realize that I can't see how veto power would sustain a relationship. I used to think that but then I'm a bit of a dominant and in D/s this could he sustainable I think. Only because all parties agree though.

Now I think that I would put my partner ahead of myself in the form of a compromise for a short period of time. Then negotiations would have to begin again as compromise doesn't last either and should not be a goal I think. Veto is essentially a compromise perhaps? If a partner asks us to end it with someone then we would consider compromising our feelings in order to do so. If we asked them we would be requesting a compromise from them so that we can feel sane again. I can't see how this would be sustained for long. There is just too much at stake in asking for a long term compromise from anyone. Eventually I would think it would rot the foundation of a once well built relationship... hopefully some kind of restoration could occur before that happens. Of course that would mean patience and perseverance. Something that I don't think comes with being firmly of mind that relationships are only workable if they are a certain way... the interest for me is in the wonder of what will happen next and the excitement of the challenge of making a relationship (along with my partners excitement too and their desire to make something of "us") the best it can be...

On another note, I get the whole prescriptive/descriptive thing now btw... I'm pretty sure this thread is filled with me figuring it out. Ya, got it now :D

On another note, I have two primaries and it is totally possible. I don't think it could be, for me, unless a triad type of connection happens though. Although my two men are not sexual, their connection is what makes it possible for me to have two primaries. They slowly have merged their lives and what I had with PN is no longer, what I had with Mono is no longer, what we all have together is new and a result of what was. My one primary relationship is made up of two men.

[victorearose]

For one thing, those boundaries they are referring to are usually invisible and constantly shifting with the comfort level of the other partner. But even more fundamentally, I have no desire to enter into a relationship where my feelings of love are assessed in terms of what threat those feelings could pose to the other partner. It means I have to structure my relationship around the insecurities of another relationship.

Wow Ceoli ... very well said. I am struggling now with on again/off again with a man that is at the mercy of our partner. At first his partner was uncomfortable and we had to go on hiatus; now my partner is having meltdowns. I am very frustrated about the entire thing and it is becoming painfully obvious that my and my partner of 9 years have a whole bunch of shit to work on if I am ever going to have happy healthy poly relationships.

Not structuring your relationships around the insecurities of other relationships ... I am so glad you have found this place of freedom to love and be loved naturally!

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

For me, it's like being told, "I would love a relationship with you, but bear in mind that no matter what happens between us, I will always place this other person ahead of you and regardless of what feelings develop, our relationship cannot grow in ways that might possibly threaten my other partnership."
Sorry to go back to old posts (and I really don't mean to harangue you, Coeli!) but I don't see what the problem is with this. I wouldn't allow a new relationship to grow in a way that threatened any of my current relationships. Why would this be a problem? The opposite (I will allow our relationship to develop in ways that threaten my other partnership) seems far more problematic to me, because it suggests a lack of commitment to existing relationships. I would be very uncomfortable dating a married or similarly commited person if I wasn't sure that they would put their primary partner ahead of me. That's what primary means to me - comes first. (And yes, I totally agree that you can have two primaries!)

So if a relationship developed to the point that it became another primary for me, then this would obviously change - they would be in joint "first place". But I wouldn't allow it to get to that point if it threatened my marriage in any way. That's what my commitment to my husband means to me. I'm open to the idea of a second, equal commitment, but until that time, any one I date has to be okay with my marriage coming first.

And doesn't this, and the quote that victorearose used ("I have no desire to enter into a relationship where my feelings of love are assessed in terms of what threat those feelings could pose to the other partner.") also contradict something else that you said?:

It definitely sounds entirely reasonable to want to end a relationship that is making your husband unhappy.
If ending a relationship that makes your primary partner unhappy (and therefore threatens the partnership) is okay, why is it not okay to assess new relationships in terms of how they threaten existing ones?

I get the feeling that we're actually talking about a far subtler distinction than the posts here acknowledge.

Victoriarose, that sounds like a very difficult situation to be in. I think that "not structuring your new relationship based on the insecurities of your other relationships" is only really a solution if the insecurities are trifling, or don't exist, and then, of course, they can't inform new relationships at all. If the insecurities are there, you have to work with them, find a way to ease them, give up poly, or give up on the relationship.

And I think that just as good communication, negotiation, and considering your partners' needs might make a veto unnecessary for some, these qualities should also ensure that for a couple who give each other veto power, that veto is used judiciously, and with care for everyone's feelings, if at all.

[jkelly]

I wouldn't allow a new relationship to grow in a way that threatened any of my current relationships. Why would this be a problem? The opposite (I will allow our relationship to develop in ways that threaten my other partnership) seems far more problematic to me, because it suggests a lack of commitment to existing relationships.

I'd say that the problem here is that one shouldn't be evaluating romantic relationships the same way one does unexpected e-mail attachments. My partners' relationships with their metamour(s) is not in reality a potential danger to me.

What's the threat? I'm not really interested in having someone stay involved with me when they would prefer not to because of some commitment they've made. Further, I don't anticipate that my partner being involved with someone else is going to have much of a direct impact on whether or not they want to stay involved with me. If it does, our relationship was already in trouble.

With that in mind, if I'm involved with someone and they are preventing the relationship from developing because some third party thinks about relationships as dangerous, that's not a good relationship for me to be in. Other people might very well like to be in a relationship with prescribed boundaries, but I know that... it's not a situation I'm likely to enjoy.

If ending a relationship that makes your primary partner unhappy (and therefore threatens the partnership) is okay, why is it not okay to assess new relationships in terms of how they threaten existing ones?

I get the feeling that we're actually talking about a far subtler distinction than the posts here acknowledge.

Oh, I don't think so. You're conflating "makes someone unhappy" and "is a threat to them". Those are two different things! Plenty of things make me unhappy that aren't going to damage me.

If it happened that a partner of mine was unhappy about a new relationship I was in, that would definitely make me think twice about that new relationship. Someone I am involved with is someone whose judgement I have a lot of respect for! They may well be picking up on something problematic about that relationship that I'm not seeing. If instead they treated every new relationship I was in as a threat to them, I'd lose that ability to rely on their opinion, which I really value. We really are discussing two different things here.

[NeonKaos]

If it happened that a partner of mine was unhappy about a new relationship I was in, that would definitely make me think twice about that new relationship. Someone I am involved with is someone whose judgement I have a lot of respect for! They may well be picking up on something problematic about that relationship that I'm not seeing. If instead they treated every new relationship I was in as a threat to them, I'd lose that ability to rely on their opinion, which I really value. We really are discussing two different things here.

I think this is what redpepper is talking about when she says she used "veto" on a relationship her husband was in. It wasn't "veto" at all, it was just pointing out something that the other partner wasn't aware of as being problematic.

Correct me by all means if I have it wrong.

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

My partners' relationships with their metamour(s) is not in reality a potential danger to me... What's the threat?
You really can't see how relationships can potentially damage or threaten other relationships at all? Not even hypothetically? I've known friendships to end over someone's choice of partner, let along long term relationships! To give an example, my husband was briefly involved with another woman who was rude to me on a few occasions, so he ended it. Good decision, yes? If he had not had ended it, I would have asked him to. If he had stayed with someone who lacked respect for me, then that relationship would have threatened ours, because I would have questioned his respect for me, his judgement and his commitment to my happiness.

With that in mind, if I'm involved with someone and they are preventing the relationship from developing because some third party thinks about relationships as dangerous, that's not a good relationship for me to be in. Other people might very well like to be in a relationship with prescribed boundaries, but I know that... it's not a situation I'm likely to enjoy.
Who is talking about anyone who sees "relationships as dangerous"? I'm talking about specific relationships that have the potential to cause actual problems. That's a long way from a general view that all new partners are a threat to the primary partnership.

You're conflating "makes someone unhappy" and "is a threat to them". Those are two different things! Plenty of things make me unhappy that aren't going to damage me.
No - I see "threats" as a subset of "things that make someone unhappy". (So threats to my relationships are always things that make me unhappy, but things that make me unhappy are not always threats.)

If it happened that a partner of mine was unhappy about a new relationship I was in, that would definitely make me think twice about that new relationship. <snip> If instead they treated every new relationship I was in as a threat to them, I'd lose that ability to rely on their opinion, which I really value. We really are discussing two different things here.
Well of course those are two different things! You can't compare someone who is unhappy about one of your relationships with someone who sees every new relationship of yours as a threat! You're conflating a partnership that is threatened by a new relationship with a partnership that is threatened by EVERY new relationship! Those really are two very different situations!

[NeonKaos]

If he had stayed with someone who lacked respect for me, then that relationship would have threatened ours, because I would have questioned his respect for me, his judgement and his commitment to my happiness.

What JKelly and Ceoli (and others such as myself) are saying is that a case like this is not a function of the "other" relationship being a threat. It's a function of YOUR and YOUR HUSBAND's relationship having its own issues that need to be addressed.

Can you not clearly see that it's the part that is underlined that is the "real threat", NOT the fact that there happens to be a girlfriend? It's not the relationship with the girlfriend that is the fundamental issue, it's your husband's questionable judgment, respect, and commitment. If you get rid of the girlfriend, how exactly does that change your husband's lack of respect and commitment to YOU? It's like turning up the car stereo so you don't hear the mystery sound coming from under the hood. If you don't get the sound diagnosed and fixed, you have no business taking other passengers for a ride.

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

What JKelly and Ceoli (and others such as myself) are saying is that a case like this is not a function of the "other" relationship being a threat. It's a function of YOUR and YOUR HUSBAND's relationship having its own issues that need to be addressed.
If I don't like my husband's girlfriend being rude to me, then there is a problem with my marriage? :confused: How can addressing my relationship with my husband stop her from being a bitch?

It's not the relationship with the girlfriend that is the fundamental issue, it's your husband's questionable judgment, respect, and commitment. If you get rid of the girlfriend, how exactly does that change your husband's lack of respect and commitment to YOU?
By "getting rid of" the girlfriend, my husband proved his good judgement, respect and commitment to me. It's not getting rid of the girlfriend that would have changed my opinion of his commitment, judgement, etc! The girlfriend situation was a threat because it was a situation that needed to be dealt with. He had several ways he could have dealt with it, and after talking to me, he chose the right one for us. A threat is sometimes just a threat - not an actual problem at all. Like when the smoke alarm goes off because of burnt toast.

It's like turning up the car stereo so you don't hear the mystery sound coming from under the hood. If you don't get the sound diagnosed and fixed, you have no business taking other passengers for a ride.
I'm really not sure what you are getting at. Taking care of your partner's needs by ditching people who make them unhappy IS getting the problem diagnosed and fixed!

[NeonKaos]

Well, whatever. It's a subtle distinction but it's still clear that it's between you, your husband, and his girlfriend, not you versus your husband's relationship with his hypothetical disrespectful girlfriend.

Another way to think of it is, if the girlfriend stopped being disrepectful to you, would you consider the problem "fixed", or is the only way to "fix" the problem by getting rid of the girlfriend? ARe you talking about dumping the girlfriend as a last resort after trying to communicate to resolve the issue (I mean all THREE of you, not just you and your husband deciding "what to do with" the girlfriend)? Or is it necessary that you have your husband "prove" something to you by doing it a certain "prescribed" way?

There is an old thread about this sort of thing on here somewhere... let me go find it... Here is the post where this kind of situation is being discussed:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13413&postcount=26

[redpepper]

I get both sides of this. I think it might be short sighted to not think, when faced with the situation of a girlfriend being rude (I had a similar experience), of both sides.

Does the couple say, "do we have an issue?," or is the issue that this person is not a good match for the man because of his partners issues. Both questions would come into play and be discussed I would think, then addressed accordingly.
If the girlfriend is not willing to work on the issue she has created or has issues herself outside of the relationship dynamic, or if it turns out she is rude because she is being judged by the other partner and its a defense mechanism, and wants to work it out; that would be differing issues. The point would be to get to the bottom of it and address that. Both are valid and both can make or brake the dynamic of the relationship. How many times have we seen marriages end because of a girlfriend coming in who is a more comfortable choice for the partner and how many times have we seen a couple, where the one with the other partner breaks it off because it isn't working anymore? Same thing. We all gravitate to what works for us for different reasons no? What works for the whole is what usually gravitated towards. Nothing to do with marriage or who was there first, or who has the most or least issues.

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

Well, whatever. It's a subtle distinction but it's still clear that it's between you, your husband, and his girlfriend, not you versus your husband's relationship with his hypothetical disrespectful girlfriend.
But she is only a problem because of the relationship, therefore the relationship is part of the problem. But in any case, why is the distinction important? I don't really think it matters, because I doubt it would affect how the problem is tackled or resolved.

Another way to think of it is, if the girlfriend stopped being disrepectful to you, would you consider the problem "fixed", or is the only way to "fix" the problem by getting rid of the girlfriend?
For me, if she had stopped being a bitch, and made amends, yes, that would have solved the problem. But I wouldn't think anyone would be in the wrong if they had just wanted her gone. I suppose that depends on a huge number of factors including, of course, how rude she was!

ARe you talking about dumping the girlfriend as a last resort after trying to communicate to resolve the issue (I mean all THREE of you, not just you and your husband deciding "what to do with" the girlfriend)? Or is it necessary that you have your husband "prove" something to you by doing it a certain "prescribed" way?
I think that probably depends on how far the relationship had gone for me. If the rudeness had happened in a reasonably established relationship that had previously caused no problems, I expect ditching wouldn't have been a last resort. But in our case, it was only a few dates, and my husband had no interest in resolving the issue any other way. He lost interest in her because of her behaviour.

For us, there are certain things that are "prescribed" in the way that you seem to be suggesting: for example, it is very important to both of us that we choose partners that respect the other person and our relationship. That's a necessary, fixed aspect of all our additional relationships, and if either of us transgressed that there would be serious consequences for our marriage. That's something we both want and need, which is why having veto power wouldn't have changed the situation I described above. So there are certain aspects of our relationships that are prescribed, but I don't think that they would cause any nice, sensible poly people so much as a pause.

[NeonKaos]

But she is only a problem because of the relationship, therefore the relationship is part of the problem. But in any case, why is the distinction important? I don't really think it matters, because I doubt it would affect how the problem is tackled or resolved.

I thought the problem was because of rudeness and disrespect, not "because of the relationship". Which is it? And if the relationship is PART of the problem, what is the remainder of the problem?

I think that probably depends on how far the relationship had gone for me. If the rudeness had happened in a reasonably established relationship that had previously caused no problems, I expect ditching wouldn't have been a last resort. But in our case, it was only a few dates, and my husband had no interest in resolving the issue any other way. He lost interest in her because of her behaviour.

There are many reasons why people would go on a few dates and choose not to pursue things any further. This reason is certainly as valid as any other. I'm not sure I would consider "a few dates" on the same level as "a relationship", although some people might. It still comes down to choosing partners who will make responsible decisions, as opposed to saying "If I feel threatened by your other relationships I will decide whether you may continue to see that person". Obviously your husband agreed with you, and that's just grooovy. You said yourself that he "lost interest" in her, so he didn't break up with her because of some plan you both had in place before he even met her.

That is what this "Relationships without Prescriptions" is all about: when people decide what is going to happen in their partner's other relationships before the other partner(s) even come onto the scene. I haven't been following your story closely. I didn't realize that you were talking about a specific situation that actually happened, I thought you were talking about what-if this ever happened.

And still, I don't see it as a threat to your relationship with your husband. I see it as the girlfriend and your husband not being compatible with each other.

Take care.

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

I thought the problem was because of rudeness and disrespect, not "because of the relationship". Which is it? And if the relationship is PART of the problem, what is the remainder of the problem?
What I mean is, if she was rude to me, and she wasn't dating my husband, it wouldn't have been a problem at all. So the rudeness alone wasn't the problem. She (and her rudeness) only affected me (and therefore potentially my marriage) because she was involved with him.

It still comes down to choosing partners who will make responsible decisions, as opposed to saying "If I feel threatened by your other relationships I will decide whether you may continue to see that person".
This may be what some people mean by veto power, but it hasn't been my exposure to it. The people I've known who have had explicit veto have had something closer to this: "If I am made unhappy or feel threatened by your other relationships, I want to be able to decide whether you may continue to see that person." In a healthy relationship, that right probably won't be exercised often, if at all. And in a healthy, caring relationship the vetoer would not use that power and expect there to be no consequences from their actions. Ending a relationship because your partner told you to would be awful, right? So in a happy, healthy relationship, someone with veto power would want to avoid using it. And if you both trust each other, you trust that your partner won't use that veto power without an excellent reason, and you also trust them to do all that they can to avoid the sort of situations where veto power might feel necessary to you.

Obviously your husband agreed with you, and that's just grooovy. You said yourself that he "lost interest" in her, so he didn't break up with her because of some plan you both had in place before he even met her.
Well, it was a plan we both had in place before he met her. It's just that the plan was something that we both wanted for ourselves, so when situations that require it come up, our response is natural and pretty swift. The reason he wanted that "plan" is the same as the reason he lost interest in her.

And still, I don't see it as a threat to your relationship with your husband. I see it as the girlfriend and your husband not being compatible with each other.
That's possibly true, but if I hadn't been in the picture, he wouldn't have seen that aspect of her personality, at least for a while. He liked her fine when they were alone. So although it probably wouldn't have lasted without me there, it definitely would have lasted longer. So the way I see it, the compatibility issues were more between her and me (and consequently between her relationship with him and me), rather than exclusively him and her.

P.S. Yes, this was a real situation, but I was theorising from it, if you see what I mean, so not everything of what I have said pertains to our past situation.

[jkelly]

I've known friendships to end over someone's choice of partner, let along long term relationships!

My friends don't get to veto my romantic partners either, so I don't see how this is any different. So... what was going on in that friendship that meant that a new romantic interest ended it? Maybe the friend with a new love interest likes to get involved with terrible people to be around socially for the other friend. That's a doomed friendship; these people are incompatible as friends. Maybe the other friend can't handle seeing their friend fall in love. That's also a doomed friendship. So on and so forth.

A relationship that isn't flexible enough to accomodate the kind of changes a new romantic interest brings is a relationship that is based on the particular circumstances that exist in the moment. It's not going to be long term, because if a new romantic interest doesn't change things, something else will.

To give an example, my husband was briefly involved with another woman who was rude to me on a few occasions, so he ended it. Good decision, yes?

NeonKaos' response to this pretty much covers what I would say. I'd just emphasise that someone being rude to me doesn't threaten any of my relationships. How my romantic partners deal with someone being rude to me tells me something about my relationship to them.

Well of course those are two different things! You can't compare someone who is unhappy about one of your relationships with someone who sees every new relationship of yours as a threat! You're conflating a partnership that is threatened by a new relationship with a partnership that is threatened by EVERY new relationship!

I don't really understand the position that there exist threatening relationships, so the above isn't really clear to me. Are you saying that there exists some category of people whose relationships could never be threatening, and that there is some way to identify these people?

[RatatouilleStrychnine]

My friends don't get to veto my romantic partners either, so I don't see how this is any different.
I would say it is different because we are nearly always less commited to our friends than our partners. We rarely organise our lives (move house, find a new job, make long term commitments etc) around friendships, but we commonly do with romantic relationships. So my point was that if friendships can be tried and tested and threatened by other relationships, it must be more true that romantic relationships can be also.

So... what was going on in that friendship that meant that a new romantic interest ended it? Maybe the friend with a new love interest likes to get involved with terrible people to be around socially for the other friend. That's a doomed friendship; these people are incompatible as friends. Maybe the other friend can't handle seeing their friend fall in love. That's also a doomed friendship. So on and so forth.
You seem to be saying that any time that another person catalyses an issue in a relationship, whether romantic or not, that relationship is clearly struggling or even "doomed". Yes, I agree that problems that arise because of other relationships can highlight incompatibilities. But people also change their minds, make bad decisions they later learn from and regret, or just develop and grow as people. If a friendship struggles because of a new relationship, that does not mean the friendship was necessarily "doomed". It could be the end, yes, but it could be a temporary blip in an otherwise happy friendship/relationship. Or a difficult patch that you come through together.

A relationship that isn't flexible enough to accomodate the kind of changes a new romantic interest brings is a relationship that is based on the particular circumstances that exist in the moment. It's not going to be long term, because if a new romantic interest doesn't change things, something else will.
There is no relationship that could survive any change, whether that change comes about via another romantic relationship or not. When you say "the kind of changes a new romantic interest brings" that actually covers a huuuuuge range of possible changes from barely noticeable to seismic. Some changes are just easier to be flexible about than others. No relationship is infinitely flexible.

I'd just emphasise that someone being rude to me doesn't threaten any of my relationships. How my romantic partners deal with someone being rude to me tells me something about my relationship to them.
Yes, your partner's response to that tells you something about them. But that doesn't change the fact that before the situation is dealt with, the problem (and therefore the threat) lies with the other relationship. One doesn't negate the other. The rudeness was the threat, how my partner dealt with it came next.

I don't know why people are so keen to prove that relationships don't affect other relationships. My relationships are not self contained bubbles - my partners' friends, family and their other partners all have an affect on my relationship with them. My whole life affects my husband, and that includes my relationship with my boyfriend. Therefore, my relationship with one man is affected by my relationship with the other.

What if we turn it around and look at the positives instead of the negatives - the boons rather than the threats? My marriage has been better since meeting my boyfriend, and we love each other more. My relationship with him makes my husband happy, and that, in turn, has strengthened the bonds between all three of us. If outside forces, relationships and people can make my marriage better, then it stands to reason that they could also make it worse.

Are you saying that there exists some category of people whose relationships could never be threatening, and that there is some way to identify these people?
I'm not sure I can answer that. It's a bit like asking "is there some category of people who can never be unpleasant, and is there some way of identifying those people?" Some people cause problems and some don't. I go down the path of thinking the best of people until they give me a reason not to. So I consider no one and no relationships to be threatening until I see evidence that I am wrong.