Input needed on crowdsourced article about couple privilege & polyamory

[AggieSez]

Hi folks

A while back several people in this forum offered their ideas and tips on how to treat non-primary partners well in poly/open relationships. That led to my recent crowdsourced article on my blog SoloPoly (http://solopoly.net), which has been attracting a fair amount of discussion in the poly/open community:

Non-primary partners tell: how to treat us well (http://solopoly.net/2012/11/27/non-primary-partners-tell-how-to-treat-us-well/)

I'm working on another crowdsourced article and would appreciate input from people in this community.

This time I want to tackle the phenomenon of couple privilege -- what it is, how it affects the poly/open community, whether it's a problem, how people are dealing with it, and how we could deal with it.

See: Couple privilege: Your thoughts? (http://solopoly.net/2012/12/03/couple-privilege-your-thoughts/)

I realize this is a touchy topic, since poly/open people hold a wide range of divergent and strong views on this topic. So I won't try to digest it into a tip list (as with my previous article), but rather present one or more articles that describe what's going on with couple privilege in polyamory.

In that initial call for input I laid out my thinking so far -- how I'm defining couple privilege, and some core issues and challenges it entails in poly/open relationships. I then raise several questions I'd like feedback on. These are:

Do you believe couple privilege exists? How would you define it? (Or how would you adjust my proposed definition?)
How have you seen couple privilege manifest in poly/open relationships? (Examples)
Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not?
How has couple privilege affected your personal experience of poly/open relationships? Specific examples or personal stories are welcome.
How would you like to see couple privilege addressed in the poly/open community at large?
If you are part of a primary couple that chooses to handle relationships with additional intimate partners in hierarchical ways that may seem to reinforce couple privilege, what is your rationale or intent for those choices?
If you eschew hierarchy and/or labels in your poly/open relationships, how do you “walk that talk” regarding couple privilege?
If you are a non-primary partner or solo poly/open person, how have you adapted to couple privilege in terms of how you handle relationships and what you’re willing to accommodate?


To respond, please feel free to comment here, or on my blog post, or in a post of your own (send me the link), or e-mail me (aggiesez@hotmail.com (mailto:aggiesez@hotmail.com))

As with my previous crowdsourcing project, I'm open to input from anyone on this -- but I'm particularly keen on hearing from people who are non-primary partners in ongoing poly/open relationships, since our perspective usually isn't very prominent in discourse about polyamory.

If your respond, I'd appreciate if you’d clarify whether you identify as poly/open (or not), and whether you currently have a primary partner, and whether you currently are in a non-primary relationship. I’m happy to consider input from anyone, but that it crucial context for understanding your perspective.

Once again, I will not identify specific contributors — but as in my prior crowdsourced post on treating non-primary partners well, I will quote from selected responses.

Please feel free to share this request with your networks!

Thanks :-)

[LovingRadiance]

Do you believe couple privilege exists?Absolutely and without question.

How would you define it? (Or how would you adjust my proposed definition?) Prioritizing the needs/desires/preferences of the couple over any other partners.

How have you seen couple privilege manifest in poly/open relationships? (Examples) Creation of boundary agreements that largely impact the ability of other partners to ever have similar depth/privilege/rights in relationship with either partner in the couple. Property ownership, decision making regarding vacations, weekends, finances, etc.

Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not? I think it's unrealistic to expect people to negate it without time to move towards the negation of it-
but I think overall it is harmful.

I think that it's MUCH MORE functional to prioritize privilege earned in terms of responsibility put in; not in terms of who came first.

For example: we (husband and I) have an agreement that specifies the amount of responsibility and privilege we expect from a person who is in any given role in our lives. We created the agreement so that we could communicate with one another more simply in terms of what we can expect from metamours regarding responsibility to the FAMILY SITUATION and to our partner as well as what privileges we agree go along with those levels of responsibility.

My boyfriend (who has lived with us for 10 years) has equal privilege regarding financial decisions (we are actually in process of purchasing an additional property in his name so that we can improve his credit-as he's never had a mortgage, major cc or loan).
He has equal say so in terms of safety boundaries (safer sex for example) that pertain to any "new" partners (of which he is not).
He has equal say in regards to where family vacations are planned and when and daily schedules, kids schedules, activities, chores etc.

By our boundary definitions he is in fact an "OSO" and has all the same privileges as a full member of our family.

There has still been "couple-centric issues" in terms of equality because of the fact that we got to poly via he and I cheating (3 years poly now). That has meant he and I regaining trust. One of the steps in that has been prioritizing Dh's need for date time with me as a first. That need gets met prior to scheduling date time with my bf.
However-this is a concession bf and I discussed and agreed to on account of our breach of trust.

On the other hand-if someone new comes into the picture as a potential-the amount of one-on-one time they get is significantly less than either my DH or bf gets with me-based upon our ability to "sneak in private moments" since we live together (we still only reserve one date night a week due to having kid/work/school obligations).
They are limited to one date a week one-on-one-which is the same as we get, but because they don't live with us-they miss the sneak-peak moments.

Once a relationship is established they earn more opportunity to spend time joining in family/social activities in addition to the date time.

As time passes, they can become more integrated and involved in the family and to the extent that they put in-they can "get out" of it.




How has couple privilege affected your personal experience of poly/open relationships? Specific examples or personal stories are welcome.see above



How would you like to see couple privilege addressed in the poly/open community at large?I don't know.


If you are part of a primary couple that chooses to handle relationships with additional intimate partners in hierarchical ways that may seem to reinforce couple privilege, what is your rationale or intent for those choices?

If you eschew hierarchy and/or labels in your poly/open relationships, how do you “walk that talk” regarding couple privilege?
It's a work in progress. We started with a disaster. I can't say it was even hierarchical-it was just a big clusterfuck.

But-our goal is to address issues as they arise individually and to respect each person in our family as an individual with rights and needs and preferences to be considered by all.
We work (not as a couple-but as a family unit with four parental like people) to prioritize each persons needs without exclusion of anothers. When it becomes impossible due to complete contradictions-we prioritize the kids needs first, then brainstorm the most equitable possible options.
We haven't gotten it fully on board with what we want yet-but we've come a HELL of a long way from where we started.

[WhatHappened]

Do you believe couple privilege exists? How would you define it? (Or how would you adjust my proposed definition?)

Yes. I'd define it as putting the preservation of the couple first and foremost.


How have you seen couple privilege manifest in poly/open relationships?

In my situation, as a single woman seeing a married poly man, I see it mainly in the fact that our dates tend to revolve around his wife's plans. I see a lot of ways in which he has put my feelings and what matters to me on an equal or even higher level, which I suspect, reading here, is a little atypical.

However, there's that one major 'couple privilege' of the assumption that the couple will remain together, which tells the secondary from the start that this relationship can only go so far. Yes, a few do eventually move in and become co-primaries, but there are so many reasons why that wouldn't work for most people, that those numbers are very, very small and don't change the likely outcome of this secondary relationship can only go so far.

I have been told repeatedly that "I can't offer you more." (No, I wasn't asking, he says it in apology and in reference to other things.) So right from the start there is the mixed message of, "I really, really like you, I can't wait to see you again, I'd do anything for you...except that...and I can't see you tonight." In short, it can feel like, you're not really all that.

Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not?

It's beneficial to the couple for obvious reasons. It's what allows them to believe they have enough security in the marriage to venture out.

For the secondary, it depends on many things: the situation and desires of the particular (secondary) person, and just how much couple privilege we're talking about (only the one rule that they won't break up, or an extensive list of rules and regulations?)

If the secondary has no desire to have this person full time, it's beneficial to know she's 'safe' from this guy suddenly wanting to move in with her.

In most cases, I'd say it's neutral at best, and usually harmful, to the secondary person. I think the reasons are obvious. You've got a third person dictating the terms of your so-called relationship.


How has couple privilege affected your personal experience of poly/open relationships? Specific examples or personal stories are welcome.

Being told we can't get together because he's going out with her.
Knowing, always, at the back of my mind, that she does ultimately have veto power. In their case, it's more veto over being open at all than over a particular person. But that doesn't change the outcome for me, should she suddenly decide she doesn't want an open marriage any more.
Knowing from the start that I must keep my feelings in check because this relationship (mine and his) has an end point because he's married and intends to stay that way. I have no problem with this and in fact don't want to be the cause of breaking up a marriage, but I also have no intention of falling desperately in love with someone who will ultimately choose to be with me only on his terms.
Keeping my feelings in check means our relationship will never be all it could be.



How would you like to see couple privilege addressed in the poly/open community at large?
I don't feel I'm deep enough into the poly/open community to really know how it's viewed over all, or what needs addressing. But perhaps among other things what is needed is the honesty you mention. Honesty requires, in part, admitting that the egalitarian ideal works better as a theory than as a reality.

People need to believe that they can rely on their spouse. I won't even say know because I've seen too many examples, even here, of primary couples breaking up and one person re-marrying their secondary. But in relationships, any relationship, we have a need to believe we can count on someone else to continue being there and playing their role in our lives. We are not islands. We weren't made to be islands.

But it is this very promise to continue being there for one person that limits and often ultimately harms the second person who becomes very emotionally involved.

This is one of the fatal, inherent flaws I see in polyamory.


If you are part of a primary couple[/B] that chooses to handle relationships with additional intimate partners in hierarchical ways that may seem to reinforce couple privilege, what is your rationale or intent for those choices?

I'm not part of a primary couple, but my guess is that the ultimate reason is security: feeling they can each trust that the other will ultimately come back home to them.

If you are a non-primary partner or solo poly/open person, how have you adapted to couple privilege in terms of how you handle relationships and what you’re willing to accommodate?

I am less emotionally invested in the relationship than my BF is, for my own emotional protection. I enjoy his company very much, but I remind myself not to 'take it too seriously,' not to let myself become emotionally dependent on him, not to start expecting anything from him.

The longer into it I go, however, I find I'm less willing to accept, "Oh, sorry, Baby, I'm married" as an excuse for anything that would smack of telling me her wants and needs would always come ahead of mine.

I have reminded myself often enough that I can walk away from this anytime I don't feel I'm being treated with respect and concern, and I'm quite willing to.

[nycindie]

This time I want to tackle the phenomenon of couple privilege -- what it is, how it affects the poly/open community, whether it's a problem, how people are dealing with it, and how we could deal with it.
Hmm, I think your premise is a bit flawed. What or which "poly community" is being affected by this concept of "couple privilege?" I mean, all people who are polyamorous aren't paying for membership in a worldwide club nor confronting the same issues everywhere. Poly is just a structure for managing relationships, not a galvanized movement or community. Sure, there are local groups all over the place, but they are made up of people who all do their own things - can a concept such as "couple privilege" actually influence a diverse bunch of people who make their own choices about their relationships?

. . . I laid out my thinking so far -- how I'm defining couple privilege, and some core issues and challenges it entails in poly/open relationships. I then raise several questions I'd like feedback on.
I practice solo polyamory, and although I won't answer all your questions, I will answer the questions I feel moved to or able to answer.

Do you believe couple privilege exists?
Nope. There is no polyamorous authority that grants privilege to any particular poly group from on high, so where would such a privilege come from? Certainly there is such an attitude that many couples do have, but... actual privilege? No. It is imaginary. If couples act in a way that indicates a they have a certain privilege over individuals, it is basically because they think that's what they should do, and for whatever reason, they feel it is necessary for their "survival" as a couple. Or it is based on a misguided arrogance which leads them to think that anyone else they get involved with is only there to supplant and enhance what they have, while the individuals' needs are far less important. But the carrying out of such a privilege only happens if the individuals they get involved with also go along with it.

I personally call this attitude "revering The Holy Dyad," and I do find it distasteful. I would not get involved with anyone who operates that way, as I do not recognize the idea that there is any sort of privilege a couple should have. I feel that if people in a couple want additional relationships, they just need to embrace and accept the idea that everything is going to change, and holding onto this kernel of having the couple at the center of their poly universe makes absolutely no sense. Even if you are raising children, I see no reason to keep them in the dark about special people in your lives -- and there are all sort of alternative ways to parent/co-parent. Of course, children must be protected and nurtured, but if you are having multiple relationships for the relating and not just the sex, then why not start thinking of parenting differently (communally) and having your partners be co-parents? Perhaps the notion that a couple in a poly configuration is of utmost importance and must be protected at all costs comes from the swinging community, or springs out of society's preference for the traditions of monogamy. But such privilege only exists if we pay credence to it. I don't, and won't, so I am unaffected by such nonsense.

How would you like to see couple privilege addressed in the poly/open community at large?Again, I ask, what poly/open community??? :confused:

If you eschew hierarchy and/or labels in your poly/open relationships, how do you “walk that talk” regarding couple privilege?

If you are a non-primary partner or solo poly/open person, how have you adapted to couple privilege in terms of how you handle relationships and what you’re willing to accommodate?
I can answer both these questions with the same response, because I am solo and do not engage in hierarchies myself. Basically, couple privilege, as I stated earlier, is a non-issue for me because I refuse to engage with anyone who believes in such poppycock. And so I don't feel the need to get defensive about my position, either. I have come across partnered poly guys who were interested in me and did have some sort of rules with their primary partner that seemed to invoke a privilege over individuals, but I walk away from that!

My approach to handling it is simple. I have established my own personal boundaries surrounding how I want to be treated in relationships. One of my boundaries is that no metamour will make rules for or dictate how I conduct my relationships. Another boundary I have is that I will not tolerate being treated with disrespect. Both of those boundaries of mine mean that, if I meet and am interested in getting involved with someone who is poly and partnered with someone they consider primary, I ask what rules they have that will affect me. If they tell me things that do not sit right with me and indicate that they see their primary relationship as The Holy Dyad -- such as, for example, their spouse has veto power -- I say, "Thanks but no thanks. Buh-bye!" No matter how attracted I may be to a guy, if a relationship isn't starting out on a level playing field, why would I even want to go there? To struggle for the equanimity that is my right in any relationship? It isn't worth it to me to try and change his views, or to put myself in a position like that hoping it will someday get better. Perhaps that is why I am very cautious about getting into something with someone who is already partnered.

I am not saying that I would not respect a lover's other relationships, nor that I would never accept certain limitations or be able to negotiate on some things, such as amount or frequency of time we can spend together or other such things that naturally make sense when someone is juggling multiple relationships. For example, I had no problem with not contacting with one lover of mine on Sundays because I knew that he and his wife had set aside that day as "their time" -- but he never forbade me from contacting him on Sundays, and sometimes initiated contact with me on those days. I would not contact him because I knew he needed that day to be with her. But if he had set down a decree that I am never allowed to contact him on Sundays, I would have thought, "What the hell? Who do you think you are?" So, because I felt respected and not talked down to, I respected him, and his other relationship, and willingly accommodated what he needed.

I think that, probably, the biggest mistake solo poly folks make is not to establish their own personal set of boundaries for any potential partners/lovers to abide by. It doesn't make sense that a couple's rules or boundaries are the only ones that matter. Whether a solo poly person is considering a romantic liaison with a couple or someone who is part of a couple, instead of thinking that the couple's rules or considerations should take precedence over the solo's, the solo needs to be clear about what they need to feel valued and important to someone, and they should make it plain and clear to the partnered potential(s) what their own boundaries are and that the couple's will not take precedence for them.

[ThatGirlInGray]

Well written blog post. I'll do my best.


Do you believe couple privilege exists? How would you define it? (Or how would you adjust my proposed definition?) I think your definition works well. I think the "presumption" and "default" parts are particularly important. For myself, I do not see my relationship with my husband as more valid or more important than my relationship with my partner. But I'm well aware of the protections I'm afforded because MC and I chose to get the piece of paper: medical insurance, tax benefits, legalities of property ownership and child custody, etc. That's exactly why we chose to get the piece of paper, since we didn't need it for our own recognition of the commitment we'd made to each other. It saddens and angers me that even when TGIB joins our household he will not be able to be included in the protections the rest of our family will automatically enjoy.
How have you seen couple privilege manifest in poly/open relationships? (Examples) The only other poly person I know in person is pretty much doing the solo poly thing, dating two men who are each dating only her, so except for my own experiences I don't have any examples of couple privilege or lack thereof in poly relationships.
Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not? Overall I would say harmful due to the lack of thoughtful examination and deliberateness inherent in the proposed definition of couple privilege. If communication is the key to successful poly, assumptions are the downfall of it. Introspection is also part of this, as you can't know where your boundaries are if you don't know what you do and don't want from a relationship.
How has couple privilege affected your personal experience of poly/open relationships? Specific examples or personal stories are welcome. I'm quite strong-willed and usually argue logically, so from the beginning MC and I discussed not only our boundaries but the reasons behind them. Some boundaries had to do with respecting my husband and the time I spent with him, because I wanted to, not because I was afraid he would leave me if I didn't. And for years I was perfectly okay with the boundary of not sleeping with other people, because I did not want to risk getting pregnant with someone else's child (and I'm really fricking picky anyway. I can only think of 3 people I wanted to sleep with but didn't due to pregnancy risk, and 2 of those I'm just as glad now, looking back, that I didn't!). Once I was done having kids and my pregnancy risk dropped significantly, AND I developed a relationship with TGIB where sleeping together was something we wanted to incorporate into our relationship, the boundary changed. It took some time for MC to get used to the idea, being a new thing and all, so we didn't rush anything, but ultimately we got to a place where everyone was content with the outcome. Because, to me, IF couple privilege exists in my relationships (and I can't prevent all of it), I want it affecting BOTH couples that I'm a part of equally. Of course, even if it were to apply to ALL couples equally, then you get into inequalities with people who are single or in triads or what have you, so it's worth working towards a society where one is not defined by one's relationship status.
If you are part of a primary couple that chooses to handle relationships with additional intimate partners in hierarchical ways that may seem to reinforce couple privilege, what is your rationale or intent for those choices? TGIB is currently long distance so that affects a lot of our choices at the moment. Also, MC and I have two children while TGIB has three children with his ex. We have all made the choice not to co-parent each other's children beyond what a platonic housemate would do. Our parenting styles are different enough that trying to coordinate the way MC and I want to raise our children with the way TGIB and his ex have agreed to raise their children is not worth the headaches and stress. IF we are ever in a situation where all the kids are living in the same household long-term, then of course compromises will have to be reached, but we aren't there yet. In some ways I see it much like trying to coordinate parenting styles and duties in regards to a step-parent, particularly based on how much time the child spends living with said step-parent.

[ThatGirlInGray]

Now, another post I'd like to respond to- I'd define it as putting the preservation of the couple first and foremost. I was talking to TGIB about this bit, and his response was, "Aren't there two couples in our relationship?" and he's right. I know you meant preserving the primary couple first and foremost, but frankly if my relationship has to be "preserved" or "protected" then it's probably time to exit anyway. I'm not going to run out and start doing things to intentionally damage my relationship with my husband, of course, but nor am I going to tiptoe on eggshells and treat it like a fragile piece of glass. If my relationship can't stand up to my choices, it's fucked anyway.

In my situation, as a single woman seeing a married poly man, I see it mainly in the fact that our dates tend to revolve around his wife's plans. I see a lot of ways in which he has put my feelings and what matters to me on an equal or even higher level, which I suspect, reading here, is a little atypical. Does he tend to change plans with you based on plans she makes? Or does she just get on the calendar first since she lives with him? MC has a friend that he meets up with to work on writing, and a lot of times she tries to schedule something only a few days in advance, which doesn't really work for our family schedule. And when he tries to schedule something further in advance, she often doesn't know her schedule well enough to commit. I wonder if, in your case, is that less "couple privilege" and more "live-in partner privilege".

However, there's that one major 'couple privilege' of the assumption that the couple will remain together, which tells the secondary from the start that this relationship can only go so far. Yes, a few do eventually move in and become co-primaries, but there are so many reasons why that wouldn't work for most people, that those numbers are very, very small and don't change the likely outcome of this secondary relationship can only go so far. While I agree that this does happen a lot, I think your assumption that a co-primary must move in to be considered such speaks again to the "live-in partner privilege" rather than "couple privilege". TGIB and I didn't start this relationship with any sort of "this can only go so far" message, though there was definitely a message of "I have no interest in leaving my husband" which TGIB was perfectly okay with (again, MY choice and decision, not anyone else's assumption). It was more of "we don't know what this is, let's let it play out and figure it out." Originally he had NO desire to live with a partner again, or even be in a committed relationship again. As those desires changed, though, the expectation of what will happen once we all live in the same area changed, from "living nearby" to "living next door" to "living with us".

I have been told repeatedly that "I can't offer you more." (No, I wasn't asking, he says it in apology and in reference to other things.) So right from the start there is the mixed message of, "I really, really like you, I can't wait to see you again, I'd do anything for you...except that...and I can't see you tonight." In short, it can feel like, you're not really all that. I understand that feeling, and it SUCKS, but again I wonder if it really goes back to couple privilege or something more general like family responsibilities. TGIB is not seeing anyone else at the moment, but he still has tons of responsibilities and commitments to his kids and other family members. He would LIKE to be able to give me more, but it's just not possible given the situation at the moment. Perhaps there's a "family privilege" for those with kids that is similar to "couple privilege". In fact, thinking about it, I can already think of privileges for those with kids AND privileges for those without kids, so I guess it can go either way and the key is to be aware of whichever one applies to you/your loved ones.
It's beneficial to the couple for obvious reasons. It's what allows them to believe they have enough security in the marriage to venture out. Ouch. That last sentence feels a little derogatory. Hopefully you were speaking to the un-examined assumptions of couple privilege? Because I would venture to say that BECAUSE MC and I have discussed so thoroughly the ways in which we don't desire to adhere to the expectations of couple privilege, but rather do what we feel is best for each of us separately, as well as best for us as a couple (and that applies to me and TGIB as well), THAT is what tells me we're strong enough to navigate whatever comes to pass, whether we're referring to my relationship with TGIB or not.
For the secondary, it depends on many things: the situation and desires of the particular (secondary) person, and just how much couple privilege we're talking about (only the one rule that they won't break up, or an extensive list of rules and regulations?) Very true.
But perhaps among other things what is needed is the honesty you mention. Honesty requires, in part, admitting that the egalitarian ideal works better as a theory than as a reality.

People need to believe that they can rely on their spouse. I won't even say know because I've seen too many examples, even here, of primary couples breaking up and one person re-marrying their secondary. But in relationships, any relationship, we have a need to believe we can count on someone else to continue being there and playing their role in our lives. We are not islands. We weren't made to be islands.

But it is this very promise to continue being there for one person that limits and often ultimately harms the second person who becomes very emotionally involved.

This is one of the fatal, inherent flaws I see in polyamory. I wonder if this is part of the difference between choosing to be poly because it makes sense and being wired for poly. Is it easier for those "wired" for poly to continue being there for more than one person? I feel I'm there for TGIB as much as I am for MC (except for the long distance thing, but again, that goes back to family responsibilities on both our parts, not romantic entanglements). And I would sure hope that TGIB is very emotionally involved because I sure am, even though I'm also married to and very emotionally involved with MC. This may be the key to "successful" (by whatever definition you choose) poly relationships- are you, as an individual REALLY capable of putting the time, energy, and effort into multiple relationships? Or are you already pretty stretched just trying to handle one? I wonder how many people try to be poly because they like the idea in theory, rather than are cognizant of the real consequences of it, and if those aren't the ones that tend to blow up badly.

[nycindie]

I'm not going to run out and start doing things to intentionally damage my relationship with my husband, of course, but nor am I going to tiptoe on eggshells and treat it like a fragile piece of glass. If my relationship can't stand up to my choices, it's fucked anyway.
Amen! I like how you worded that.

[AggieSez]

Thanks so much for this thoughtful response!

[AggieSez]

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response, @nycindie.

I've got quite a diverse array of responses on this issue of couple privilege, so I'll have to tackle it in several posts -- including the perspective that it doesn't exist. Thanks for your eloquent thoughts on that perspective!

You wrote:

I think that, probably, the biggest mistake solo poly folks make is not to establish their own personal set of boundaries for any potential partners/lovers to abide by. It doesn't make sense that a couple's rules or boundaries are the only ones that matter. Whether a solo poly person is considering a romantic liaison with a couple or someone who is part of a couple, instead of thinking that the couple's rules or considerations should take precedence over the solo's, the solo needs to be clear about what they need to feel valued and important to someone, and they should make it plain and clear to the partnered potential(s) what their own boundaries are and that the couple's will not take precedence for them.

Wow, that is fodder for an entirely separate crowdsourced post. Thanks for the idea! I'll start a separate thread on that later!

[AggieSez]

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply, @thatgirlingray. You made a lot of good points, and I like your approach!

[AggieSez]

I think that it's MUCH MORE functional to prioritize privilege earned in terms of responsibility put in; not in terms of who came first.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. One of my closest friends (married and poly) also takes the view that privilege/prioritization can be earned over time by any partner in a poly network of relationships.

[Daysleeper]

1). I think that when you enter into a new relationship with someone, there are generally going to be things more important to them than you are. It could be a career, a relative, a friend, a hobby, or a lover. They may be open to prioritizing you over these things eventually, or they may not. When speaking to me, if someone says, "I can't be do x with or for you because of y," I don't think it's different if y is a career, a marriage or a hobby. I think there is a tendency to focus on other relationships because of some (to me unrealistic) idea that all relationships should be equal and a tendency to view metamours as competition. Sometimes one relationship gets priority over others for a number of reasons.

For my purposes, let's say couple privilege is prioritizing one relationship over another.

I think society gives couples privileges triads, quads etc do not have as thatgirlingray already mentioned


2. The way I have most often seen it unfold is this. Single person x starts dating partnered person y. Y says they are always going to prioritize primary partner c. Even though x is uncomfortable with this and understands the potential consequences, they choose to date y anyway. At some point, y has both c and x asking for some of the same resources. Y usually gives them to c. For some reason, x is surprised by this and expects y to change. I don't understand why this is so common.

3. I think it's beneficial for everyone to set the priorities in their own lives and be clear about them. Though I sometimes wish people's priorities were different, I think it is best that everyone decide how to divvy up his or her resources based on his or her priorities. I don't think there is any "correct" set of priorities.

4. I may have been affected negatively by couple privilege when someone i dated for years dumped all of his partners (including me) because he met a monogamous person he could see himself marrying one day. My understanding was that we were working toward a primary relationship. He said that his relationship with this person was more important than all of his other relationships. It was painful for me, but I think he had to invest himself in what he thought was most important. In the end, I'm not sure if it is really a case of couple privilege or simply a case of being disappointed that he had not been honest with me about the importance of our relationship.

In another case though, I have been equally affected by a partner prioritizing a career over me. That was just as painful, though it was more difficult for me to (temporarily, in the heat of my frustration) see a bank account or title as being responsible for the pain in my relationship, while on the above case it was easy to use the new partner as a scape goat to avoid my disappointment in my partner.

5. Consenting adults should enter relationships under any condition they like. I have had plenty of people proposition me with arrangements I had no interest in, but I told them why that wasn't compatible with my desire and moved on. I think it's a bad idea to try to tell everyone which agreements they should make en mass, though I think it can be helpful to give your opinion to people who are interested in it.

6. I am part of a partnered couple. I tell people it is unrealistic to expect the same commitment from me that I give my husband before years and years together. My husband got to where he is by years of trustworthy, caring, compassionate and reliable behavior. He earned his prominent role in my life. I think it would be wonderful to develop something that deep with someone else, but I'd expect it would take years.

If my husband told me it was monogamy or divorce, and we could not find any other way to resolve the issue, I would be monogamous. I made specific commitments to him first, and I will not consciously break those. If someone one day reaches that level of commitment, they will be entitled to the same promises from me, and my husband has agreed to promise the new person equal rights in every way should that time come. Until then, he does have priority. My other partners know this, and they have consented to pursue a relationship with me under those terms. I don't believe the terms are "right" or "wrong". We're all consenting adults making informed choices.

7. My approach to poly is different than some in that I am only willing to date people who understand that most of our time together will be spent in groups. They can bring one or more partners or friends with them. Affection between any combination of people is acceptable in these groups. Most of the time, in these groups, my husband doesn't get a very large portion of my attention because I am more focused on people I see less. At bedtime, it's usual for people to split up in unplanned ways. If a partner wants more sex or wants a private conversation, they are absolutely free to ask for it, and I will accommodate them to the best of my ability. Anyone who doesn't want this is free to pursue a relationship that fits their desires.


I have never been in a situation where my husband didn't want me to date someone I was interested in or vice versa, so that issue has been nonexistent. Our plan in such a case is to identify the reasons for the desire and work on those issues.

The issues my husband had with my other relationships and vice versa were easy to solve by everyone involved talking it out in the same room or over a conference call.

[northhome]

Do you believe couple privilege exists? How would you define it?

When one has been together for a while a reservoir of shared experience is created that a third party joining the relationship has not been a part of. If (when) decisions are made based on that shared history and the third party is affected by that reference then, yes, couple privilege is invoked.

I do find the word privilege a bit loaded however.


How have you seen couple privilege manifest in poly/open relationships?

Yes.


Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not?

I've not personally seen any existence of a 'poly-community' so can't answer that. In poly-relationships it can be something that provides a glue that keeps the original relationship going through tough times (positive) or something that disempowers the third person (negative). It's all down to how conscious everyone involved is.


How has couple privilege affected your personal experience of poly/open relationships?

It is simply a reality, we've been together longer.


How would you like to see couple privilege addressed in the poly/open community at large?

What community?


If you are part of a primary couple that chooses to handle relationships with additional intimate partners in hierarchical ways that may seem to reinforce couple privilege, what is your rationale or intent for those choices?

We've been together longer. We can't do anything about that, it's simply part of the picture. If you don't like that, then we're not good people to connect with. The ones who like it see it as an asset and a sign that we have skills in creating a long-term relationship that can weather stormy waters.

[nycindie]

Wow, that is fodder for an entirely separate crowdsourced post. Thanks for the idea! I'll start a separate thread on that later!
I started a thread here about this awhile back. It's here somewhere...

[PolyLinguist]

I like surveys of this kind. Let me try to answer the questions, as honestly and clearly as I can:



Do you believe couple privilege exists? How would you define it? (Or how would you adjust my proposed definition?)

Most certainly. Anyone part of a couple who wants to take on a poly relationship without believing that such privileges exist will be un-coupled in short order.

As for defining it, it is easy: when you are part of a long-term relationship, you cannot take decisions affecting the couple without consulting your partner, and taking his/her views into consideration. Couple privilege consists of taking decisions with your partner's view/opinions/feelings in mind.

How have you seen couple privilege manifest in poly/open relationships? (Examples)

Yes. A V situation, with a man married to a long-term partner and a female unmarried friend. His wife has made some conditions, the other two seem to go along with them. He is a charming guy, he is worth the candle for both of them, it seems to me.

Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not?

Harmful or beneficial to whom? No couple (as I understand the term) can survive as a couple unless the partners consult each other and care about the other's opinions and feelings. As for the third party, he or she simply should not enter such a relationship unless (s)he is willing to accept, cheerfully, couple privilege. Reluctance and resentment do not a relationship make. In any case, wouldn't a third party have conditions of his/her own?

How has couple privilege affected your personal experience of poly/open relationships? Specific examples or personal stories are welcome.

No experience yet, sorry. But I and my wife are intelligent and flexible people, I am sure we could work any reasonable problems out, after discussions with any reasonable third party.

How would you like to see couple privilege addressed in the poly/open community at large?

More practical examples, less ideologizing.

If you are part of a primary couple that chooses to handle relationships with additional intimate partners in hierarchical ways that may seem to reinforce couple privilege, what is your rationale or intent for those choices?

Aside from explaining the obvious significance of having shared my life with someone on a long-term basis, I wouldn't feel the need for giving a "rationale". Here is the situation, here are the obvious implications. If you can't live with them, too bad, but this won't work. There is always some room for negotiations, though.

If you eschew hierarchy and/or labels in your poly/open relationships, how do you “walk that talk” regarding couple privilege?

I don't normally eschew hierarchy. I am not against what would traditionally be called a bigamous household with complete equality between my two wives, but this is not likely to happen. As for myself, I wouldn't become a "co-husband" in a million years.

If you are a non-primary partner or solo poly/open person, how have you adapted to couple privilege in terms of how you handle relationships and what you’re willing to accommodate?

No experience, sorry. But I would adopt quite easily to being a non-primary partner (traditionally called a lover) of someone with a husband and family. And if I couldn't call her on Sunday, tant pis, I will think of something else to do.

--------------

To respond, please feel free to comment here, or on my blog post, or in a post of your own (send me the link), or e-mail me (aggiesez@hotmail.com (mailto:aggiesez@hotmail.com))

As with my previous crowdsourcing project, I'm open to input from anyone on this -- but I'm particularly keen on hearing from people who are non-primary partners in ongoing poly/open relationships, since our perspective usually isn't very prominent in discourse about polyamory.

If your respond, I'd appreciate if you’d clarify whether you identify as poly/open (or not), and whether you currently have a primary partner, and whether you currently are in a non-primary relationship. I’m happy to consider input from anyone, but that it crucial context for understanding your perspective.

I am a married man, and agree wholeheartedly with most of the principles of the polyamory movement, as does my wife. Whether I can actually find a poly partner for myself is another matter - maybe yes, maybe no.

[rory]

Despite this being a thread intended for thoughts and experiences more than a discussion, I'd like to address this

Honesty requires, in part, admitting that the egalitarian ideal works better as a theory than as a reality.

the reason I disagree with this is not because there aren't people who claim to live by that ideal and fail to do so (whether intentionally or not). The reason is that this line of thought lets them off the hook way too easy. It is not the ideal that is at fault, it is the person who isn't able/willing to put the work into what they say they will. I.e. being honest about hierarchy doesn't mean saying "it's probably impossible to reach an egalitarian situation", it means saying "I am not willing/able to prioritise my relationship with you, or your feelings, to have those difficult talks with my other partner, or to go through the challenges of making changes that would make things more fair towards you". It's not because the ideal can't work, it's because making it work requires hard work.

----

Do you believe couple privilege exists? How would you define it? (Or how would you adjust my proposed definition?)

I do think couple privilege exists. However, I am unsure how much to include within the concept. I definitely see it encompassing societal and cultural support, recognition, and financial benefits to individuals in a specific kind of relationship. I am more on the fence about specific activities those individuals choose in relating to other people.

An example from mainstream culture: a married woman cheats on her husband with a friend. Circle of friends find out, and the affair ends. The husband forgives the wife, and both stop talking with the lover, as do all the people of the friend circle. I would say the reason why the lover is ostracised and the wife is not, is definitely couple priviledge. However, I am unsure about the other aspects, the choices made by the people in the original couple. They do exist within a context of couple privilege, which also influences the likelihood of certain decisions over others. However, I am not sure if the definition of privilege allows defining individual's decisions as privilege, isn't it more that individual decisions are made in the context of privilege..?

That is, I am not sure the word can bend to all uses without the concept loosing its usefulness/clarity. I am not familiar with the concept of "invoking privilege", is that used by writing that has to do with privilege in other context (gender, race, etc.)?

Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not?

I think it is useful to approach privilege as something that simply is. Pretty much everybody has some kind of privilege, and mostly you can't really get rid of it even if you wanted to. I, for example, cannot wish myself to be non-white. I guess I could end my marriage in order to no longer have couple privilege, but don't really see that as a valid reason... ;) I do consider it an ethical responsibility to be aware of privilege so that one doesn't harm others. Privilege is not always necessary for causing harm, rather, it makes specific kind of harm hard to notice because it's culturally sanctioned.

To use a poly example, a married man starts dating a woman. His wife is initially fine with this, and the V is in existence for some time. However, at some point the wife starts to feel threatened and demands the husband breaks up with his girlfriend. The shared partner chooses to preserve his marriage by dumping the gf. Now, he might do it for whatever reasons, but couple privilege affects the situation in many ways. Firstly, the choise of divorce is less likely than breaking up with the new partner, since the former carries more social consequences. Secondly, in the ultimatum situation there's this narrative which makes that "the right thing to do". He can feel like he has to do it. Even the girlfriend may support it, because she doesn't want to "break up the marriage". This is the way in which the harm done to the non-primary partner becomes invisible. The whole belief system rests on couple privilege: the issuing of ultimatums to prove own position as most important, the obscuring of the husband's responsibility in the choices he makes and shifting it onto the "third" who came to disrupt the couple, the preservance of marriage at all costs, the perception of "the third" as less important...

(Btw, sorry about the hereronormative examples, it's just that I didn't wish to make things more complicated with straight privilege and using same gender for all makes it confusing which he/she I'm talking about :p )

How would you like to see couple privilege addressed in the poly/open community at large?

I would say there is a need for a deeper challenging of couple-based assumptions and practices. More awareness of couple privilege as it is in poly, and even more as a cultural phenomenon. And avoiding support for couple privilege in our own personal life as well as privileging couples over solos in poly spaces. Not imposing couple-centric or hierarchical relationship models on other people's relationships.

If you eschew hierarchy and/or labels in your poly/open relationships, how do you “walk that talk” regarding couple privilege?

This is an incredibly broad question. I will share some of my experience. I met Mya about 1,5 years ago. Both of us had a long-term partner, both original couples were open but not poly. With the consent of all, Mya and I started a relationship, and so we became an N. Later, the situation evolved into a V with me in the middle (non-poly-related reasons). Throughout the poly relationship, I have lived with Alec. Mya and I were first in an LDR, and she lived with her partner. She now lives alone, and the three of us live in the same city.

Being in two relationships, I started with the aim of equality, which I largely (subconsciously) equated with sameness. Not maybe as "everything has to be the same right now" but as "the eventual aim is symmetry". I think this was valuable at the beginning of poly in terms of being open to changes. However, at some point it started to become increasingly clear that the aim of symmetry was not always something that aligned with what the people involved actually wanted. Also, it seemed that the aversion towards hierarchy (plus some internalised relationship-escalator-as-measure-of-serious-relationship assumptions) was something that caused pressure towards equality. So, the aim of equality as symmetry moved aside, and was replaced by more flexible decision making based on what all want.

I think there are some aspects that have been incredibly helpful. Firstly, I don't view my poly life as something separate from other aspects of my life. Secondly, I used to have an autonomous relationship when monogamous, and I have not changed this since becoming poly. These tie in together, and I will try to illustrate.

When monogamous, I would make decisions concerning the ways in which I spend my time autonomously. Obviously, I want to spend some time with my partner, so that fact will be factored into the decision-making, along with any preferences he has expressed in the past. But if I want to see a friend, I will make plans with my friend and let my partner know about it. If he has any wishes, he is free to express them - e.g. "I have Sundays off and would like to see you then" - and I am happy to consider them in the future, but I will not cancel plans with other people once I've made them. When opening up, there is no reason to change this method - i.e. when making plans with another partner, I will not start asking for his permission, or even checking with him in advance, any more than I do when I'm making plans with a friend. He is as free to express his wishes as he's always been, and I am happy to take them into account in the future.

Poly is not separate from life. Romantic relationships are relationships. I will make my own decisions autonomously as I've always done. If my partner expresses wishes, I will consider them based on their reasonability, validity, and my own judgement; not based on some hierarchical status. I would not cancel plans with a friend simply because my partner asked me to, and I will not cancel plans with a newer partner because older partner asked me to. I would not give up a friendship simply because my partner wants me to or doesn't like my friend, nor would I break up with a person for those kind of reasons. You get the picture. None of these situations have ever happened. I doubt any of them will ever happen, because there is a mutual respect for each other's autonomy, which recognises that unreasonable demands don't become any more reasonable in romantic relationships. That is not to say that we are above that - more that we all know ultimatums etc. would not be met with compliance, because, eventually, none of us want the kinds of relationships where they are used.

Egalitarian relationships are a process. We have established a relationship life and routines that work for us. However, there is a need to remain open to change in order to take into consideration potentially changing wishes. That is the key; consideration. Doesn't mean you need to change everything, or accommodate everything your partners want, or compromise everything. It means to take seriously the wants and wishes of all people involved, whatever they are and become.

[PolyLinguist]

Interesting discussion. Thanks to AggieSez for starting it. I learned more about peoples’ attitudes to married people getting into polyamory than from any other source I have seen.

Still, I have questions and comments about some concepts raised:
The concept of harm, as in:
Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not?

I think it's unrealistic to expect people to negate it without time to move towards the negation of it - but I think overall it is harmful.

Harmful to whom? How do you define harm?

Arguably, an extramarital relationship is ipso facto harmful, possibly to all three of the people involved, and should never have been entered. Your grandmother could have told you that.

Times have changed, however, and polyamory assumes that such relationships may work out to the benefit of everyone concerned. If this was not thought to be likely (or even possible), relationships involving married people would have been specifically excluded from the writings of the people advocating polyamory, and this is not the case.

I therefore question the use of the word “harmful”. If you enter an informal relationship of any kind, there is always the danger that the other party may wish to end it one day. This may well be hurtful, but it should not be damaging. If you are healthy in spirit, you will get over it. How else do you propose dealing with relationships that have run their course? It really does not matter why the other person has ended it – it could be because of “couple privilege”, but it could also be because (s)he has become bored with you, or feels that you have not lived up to some image (s)he has of a long-term partner, or because you said something that you shouldn’t have, or did not do something that (s)he expected of you (without ever saying so). None of this matters much – no-one can be expected to live up to imagined commitments (s)he has not formally made or to qualities that (s)he does not have.

(I am clearly not talking of psychotic behaviour. If I abuse someone physically or psychologically, or burn her house down Alan Harper-style, she is not going to break up with me because of couple privilege, but because I committed a deep wrong towards her.)

The concept of a happy marriage, or “Holy Dyad”, as in:
I personally call this attitude "revering The Holy Dyad," and I do find it distasteful. I would not get involved with anyone who operates that way, as I do not recognize the idea that there is any sort of privilege a couple should have. I feel that if people in a couple want additional relationships, they just need to embrace and accept the idea that everything is going to change, and holding onto this kernel of having the couple at the center of their poly universe makes absolutely no sense.

Oh, so you find distasteful relationships such as mine or that of any number of couples I know, married for 30 or 40 years or even longer?

If it’s not that, what you find distasteful is the fact that a participant in such a Holy Dyad would try to enter other relationships? How is that different from mainstream attitudes? Oh you cheating bastard, how could you do this to your darling spouse, or to the innocent third party who has no idea what (s)he is getting into?

Fortunately for me, I don’t have to get the approval or understanding of most people. I am extremely open about my circumstances in life, and if someone doesn’t like Holy Dyads, go and take up with someone not in one. And, fortunately for the naive young innocents out there, I am not so hot and sexy (or young, more is the pity) that someone would take up with me in a moment of passion, to be let down later by the need for submission to a Holy Dyad.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but really! Intelligent people know how to evaluate social possibilities, and know what to expect from specific kinds of situations. One of my first romantic interests, whom I pursued with extreme ardour, turned to me with some exasperation at one point, and asked me: “You know that I have a boyfriend, don’t you?”. The subtext being: “You know how far this can go, don’t you?”. My excuse was my youth and inexperience.

Finally, the concepts of “off the hook” and “hard work” (in the context of relationships), as in:

Originally Posted by WhatHappened
Honesty requires, in part, admitting that the egalitarian ideal works better as a theory than as a reality.

The reason I disagree with this is not because there aren't people who claim to live by that ideal and fail to do so (whether intentionally or not). The reason is that this line of thought lets them off the hook way too easy. It is not the ideal that is at fault, it is the person who isn't able/willing to put the work into what they say they will. I.e. being honest about hierarchy doesn't mean saying "it's probably impossible to reach an egalitarian situation", it means saying "I am not willing/able to prioritise my relationship with you, or your feelings, to have those difficult talks with my other partner, or to go through the challenges of making changes that would make things more fair towards you". It's not because the ideal can't work, it's because making it work requires hard work.

What is the hook one should not be left off? Who is the hooker and the hooked (and I mean no puns) here? In my view, it is the person who has more to gain is the one who should do more work.

I am trying to envision the situation. V is at the centre of a vee (very suitably named), he is married to A and has girlfriend B. (V could also be a woman, with A and B men, or they could all be gay – I am simply using this configuration for simplicity).

V’s relationship to A could be almost anything, as long as A and V run a common home together. Talk of hard work – this is hard work. B may not get as much out of the relationship as A does, but then she does not have to invest the same amount of resources (time, money, effort) in it either.

Anyway, when B and V are together, they are having a great time. If they don’t, why are they together at all? If it’s not enjoyable for B, she can just say goodbye.

OK, so it’s enjoyable. But, after a while, she wants some certainty, some stability, some sense that she matters to V. Unfortunately, our V is a bit dense, for he does not realize that B needs reassurance and act on this realization. Alternatively, V does not care that much for B as a person, but he likes the good times. Who doesn’t like good times? He is a bastard in this case.

Now, B doesn’t know whether V is just dense or is being a bastard. She can test the waters. Ask for some sign of commitment, for example. If V is dense, he may now do something to reassure B, or he may give up and crawl back to A, who has known for a long time how dense her husband is, but what the hell, at least he is good in the sack or with power tools (or both). If V is a bastard, why, he will continue being a bastard, for example promise to talk to A and ask for more time off, then not even do this.

It’s not clear to me why B wants to be someone who is either dense or a bastard, but there is no accounting for tastes.

But what I don’t get above all is what this has to do with being off (or not off) the hook, or hard work? What’s so hard about talking over time- and money-management issues with intelligent people? Or about being honest – from the very beginning – about what you are prepared and what you are not prepared to do? What happens at Christmas, who pays for holidays, I feel lonely at times, can you do something about this? Simple issues, possible solutions. And yes, sometimes we all feel alone and neglected, deal with it. What did you do when you were unattached?

[nycindie]

Oh, so you find distasteful relationships such as mine or that of any number of couples I know, married for 30 or 40 years or even longer?

If it’s not that, what you find distasteful is the fact that a participant in such a Holy Dyad would try to enter other relationships? How is that different from mainstream attitudes? Oh you cheating bastard, how could you do this to your darling spouse, or to the innocent third party who has no idea what (s)he is getting into?

Fortunately for me, I don’t have to get the approval or understanding of most people. I am extremely open about my circumstances in life, and if someone doesn’t like Holy Dyads, go and take up with someone not in one.

Wow, you really misinterpreted what I wrote!

First of all, I never said I find long-term relationships distasteful. That makes no sense. Why would I? You only quoted the part where I said I find the revering of a Holy Dyad (my own term for it) distasteful, but you didn't quote what I was referring to, which is this:

If couples act in a way that indicates a they have a certain privilege over individuals, it is basically because they think that's what they should do, and for whatever reason, they feel it is necessary for their "survival" as a couple. Or it is based on a misguided arrogance which leads them to think that anyone else they get involved with is only there to supplant and enhance what they have, while the individuals' needs are far less important. But the carrying out of such a privilege only happens if the individuals they get involved with also go along with it.

I personally call this attitude "revering The Holy Dyad," and I do find it distasteful.

I don't find it distasteful that a married or long-term partnered couple practices polyamory. What I find distasteful is when they lord their status as a committed couple over the other people they are involved with and supposedly love. That they cling on and attempt to protect the dynamic of their relationship so that it will never change, and treat additional love partners as threats and expendable. I know lots of swingerish couples do this, and it has carried over into poly, with all sorts of clingy and possessive rules and behaviors. People can do whatever they want, but I don't have to like it or agree, and I actively choose not to get involved with couple-centric people like that. This is not to say I wouldn't respect a previously established relationship of a lover of mine, but I would not stand for not having the respect I deserve as well. I'm just sharing my viewpoint, not asking others to join me in seeing it that way,so you don't have to get so huffy.

[PolyLinguist]

Wow, you really misinterpreted what I wrote!

First of all, I never said I find long-term relationships distasteful. That makes no sense. Why would I? You only quoted the part where I said I find the revering of a Holy Dyad (my own term for it) distasteful, but you didn't quote what I was referring to, which is this:

If couples act in a way that indicates a they have a certain privilege over individuals, it is basically because they think that's what they should do, and for whatever reason, they feel it is necessary for their "survival" as a couple. Or it is based on a misguided arrogance which leads them to think that anyone else they get involved with is only there to supplant and enhance what they have, while the individuals' needs are far less important. But the carrying out of such a privilege only happens if the individuals they get involved with also go along with it.

I personally call this attitude "revering The Holy Dyad," and I do find it distasteful.

I don't find it distasteful that a married or long-term partnered couple practices polyamory. What I find distasteful is when they lord their status as a committed couple over the other people they are involved with and supposedly love. That they cling on and attempt to protect the dynamic of their relationship so that it will never change, and treat additional love partners as threats and expendable. I know lots of swingerish couples do this, and it has carried over into poly, with all sorts of clingy and possessive rules and behaviors. People can do whatever they want, but I don't have to like it or agree, and I actively choose not to get involved with couple-centric people like that. This is not to say I wouldn't respect a previously established relationship of a lover of mine, but I would not stand for not having the respect I deserve as well. I'm just sharing my viewpoint, not asking others to join me in seeing it that way,so you don't have to get so huffy.

Thank you, nycindie, and I am sorry if I misinterpreted you. It can happen to the best of us... (Not that I am among the best, I am sure).

In fact, I can see another aspect of why this attitude can be irritating. Suppose I was interested in someone (in the poly world, obviously), and that person went on and on about her wonderful husband/lover/whatever. It just wouldn't be all that sexy, would it now? :)

And I'll have to find just the right tone to express my attitude to my wife, not too little, not too much (the Goldilocks Zone, so to speak), otherwise I'll just turn everyone off.

[nycindie]

Suppose I was interested in someone (in the poly world, obviously), and that person went on and on about her wonderful husband/lover/whatever. It just wouldn't be all that sexy, would it now? :)

Ah, well, sometimes it is downright sexy. You'd be surprised. I had a lover who enjoyed me telling him story after story about the other men I've been with. He thought it was super sexy.

[rory]

What is the hook one should not be left off?


I am not sure how what you wrote relates to what I had written, but I am happy to explain what I meant by that. I referred to a hierarchical situation, where the person who has two partners treats one (non-primary) with less consideration than the other (primary). If this person then tried to justify this by arguing that s/he has to do so because egalitarian/equal poly relationship is simply impossible, and we all believed them, I think this would let them off the hook too easy. Does that make sense? What I am trying to say is that it is one thing to practice hierarchy, and another to justify it by claiming hierarchy is inevitable.

[PolyLinguist]

I am not sure how what you wrote relates to what I had written, but I am happy to explain what I meant by that. I referred to a hierarchical situation, where the person who has two partners treats one (non-primary) with less consideration than the other (primary). If this person then tried to justify this by arguing that s/he has to do so because egalitarian/equal poly relationship is simply impossible, and we all believed them, I think this would let them off the hook too easy. Does that make sense? What I am trying to say is that it is one thing to practice hierarchy, and another to justify it by claiming hierarchy is inevitable.

It makes a lot of sense, thanks.

As for the inevitability of hierarchical situations, in my opinion they are almost certain to happen if one of the participants in a new polyamorous relationship already has a long-standing relationship with someone else. Pretty much the only way to make it egalitarian would be to downgrade, significantly, the pre-existing relationship.

I don't exclude the possibility that eventually the two relationships could come to be more or less equal - the second person could move into the household, and become a close friend of the first partner, for example. Possible? Sure. Likely? I have no idea.

(I am not thinking of a true threesome, as neither I nor my wife are bi, and thinking about such possibilities doesn't enter our heads).

[Mya]

As for the inevitability of hierarchical situations, in my opinion they are almost certain to happen if one of the participants in a new polyamorous relationship already has a long-standing relationship with someone else. Pretty much the only way to make it egalitarian would be to downgrade, significantly, the pre-existing relationship.

Well that depends what the pre-existing relationship was like before the new person came along. You know, not all couples are that couple-centric to begin with. You don't necessarily have to downgrade the old relationship for the old and new relationship to become equal. And remember, equal doesn't always mean the same. Equal can mean just equally important and equally considered in life decisions for example. It doesn't mean that the two people will get everything (time, attention, sex etc.) exactly the same amount. It means that no one is higher in the hierarchy than the other when making plans and decisions.

I'll take myself as an example. I used to have two partners. I had been with my husband for 8 years when I started dating my new partner. During my marriage I had lived in a different place than my husband many times and that was always fine for us. We spent quite a lot of time with our own friends and also we didn't fully share our finances. When I started my new relationship, which was an LDR at the time, I flew to see her for a week at a time every month. But that wasn't much of an adjustement to my husband since we were so used to spending time apart anyway. I never felt I was downgrading my relationship with him but still felt like my relationships were equal to me.

Everyone doesn't have the same starting point as you.

[PolyLinguist]

Well that depends what the pre-existing relationship was like before the new person came along. You know, not all couples are that couple-centric to begin with. You don't necessarily have to downgrade the old relationship for the old and new relationship to become equal. And remember, equal doesn't always mean the same. Equal can mean just equally important and equally considered in life decisions for example. It doesn't mean that the two people will get everything (time, attention, sex etc.) exactly the same amount. It means that no one is higher in the hierarchy than the other when making plans and decisions.

I'll take myself as an example. I used to have two partners. I had been with my husband for 8 years when I started dating my new partner. During my marriage I had lived in a different place than my husband many times and that was always fine for us. We spent quite a lot of time with our own friends and also we didn't fully share our finances. When I started my new relationship, which was an LDR at the time, I flew to see her for a week at a time every month. But that wasn't much of an adjustement to my husband since we were so used to spending time apart anyway. I never felt I was downgrading my relationship with him but still felt like my relationships were equal to me.

Everyone doesn't have the same starting point as you.

Which is why it's so interesting, and so important for me, to be on this board. I get to discover lives very different from mine.

I come from a long line of "couple-oriented" people, this is how my marriage has turned out to be as well, and this is how most of my friends (and virtually all my close friends) are. It is hard for me to imagine any other "good" relationships - even if I know that they exist. I have seen plenty of relationships fall apart, of course, usually because one partner "had an affair" (as it is called in the mono world), and the other partner couldn't accept this (or the one with the affair just wanted out).

The interesting thing is that although our friends and acquaintences consider us very close, they are sometimes taken aback when they discover that I and my wife have a fair amount of autonomy (which is how it should be, in my view). We pursue different hobbies, have some friends separate from each other, and have even, occasionally, gone on short holidays alone. Good thing that our friends don't know (as yet, anyway) that I am considering polyamory!

The downgrading issue is interesting, and thanks for commenting on it. It's going to be a self-regulating thing, I expect. If it looks like a possible new relationship will require a serious downgrading of my marriage, I will not enter it. I know, it is not easy to foresee the future, especially one's future state of mind - but then I have managed my emotional life pretty well so far, why would it be different in the future?

[JaneQSmythe]

...
As for the inevitability of hierarchical situations, in my opinion they are almost certain to happen if one of the participants in a new polyamorous relationship already has a long-standing relationship with someone else. Pretty much the only way to make it egalitarian would be to downgrade, significantly, the pre-existing relationship.

I don't exclude the possibility that eventually the two relationships could come to be more or less equal - the second person could move into the household, and become a close friend of the first partner, for example. Possible? Sure. Likely? I have no idea.


I frequently use hierarchical terms in a "descriptive" way when talking about my relationships - which does not mean that I subscribe to a "proscriptive" hierarchy that seems to be what is meant by "couple-centrism" (i.e. "You can never be as important to me as HE is." "You can NEVER love them as much as you love me.")

So, Dude lives with us and is MrS's best friend (and was before we ever met). Does this mean he is "equal" to MrS? I don't really know what "equal" means in this context. They both are equally likely to forget to take out the trash, they both get yelled at when they overspend the budget, etc. Does a 2-year "boyfriend" have the same relationship with me as a 16-year "husband" - of course not...we are just getting to know each other. On the other hand, he is closer to me than MrS was at the same duration of our relationship (I have a little practice at relationships now :p) My current description is that I am married and my relationship with my boyfriend is "working toward" co-primary.

On the other hand the two relationships would not be "equal" even if I had met them at exactly the same time. Relationships grown, change, and develop at different rates. They are not the same person TWICE, they are different people, I have a different relationship with each of them. EACH of those relationships deserves the right to thrive and grow at whatever rate and whichever direction is appropriate for THAT relationship

... You don't necessarily have to downgrade the old relationship for the old and new relationship to become equal. And remember, equal doesn't always mean the same. Equal can mean just equally important and equally considered in life decisions for example. It doesn't mean that the two people will get everything (time, attention, sex etc.) exactly the same amount. It means that no one is higher in the hierarchy than the other when making plans and decisions.


Thank you, Mya. One of the lessons I had to learn as a "hinge" is that fair =/= equal. It took me 6 months to a year to learn this. I would kiss one...and then the other. Go to dinner with one...then the other. I would keep "score" so that everything was "even". I drove myself nuts. Know what? The same thing that pleases one does NOT have the same impact on the other. Some people need more physical affection, some people need to feel emotional connection, some people need shared activities...etc. If I concentrated on making sure everything was the "same" (so MrS didn't feel like he was being pushed aside and Dude didn't feel like a third wheel) then I missed out on giving each person what they REALLY wanted and simply basking in the glow of the love of two wonderful men and enjoying the relationships AS THEY WERE. They both did their parts to help me learn this lesson, for which I am thankful.

JaneQ

[PolyLinguist]

I frequently use hierarchical terms in a "descriptive" way when talking about my relationships - which does not mean that I subscribe to a "proscriptive" hierarchy that seems to be what is meant by "couple-centrism" (i.e. "You can never be as important to me as HE is." "You can NEVER love them as much as you love me.")

So, Dude lives with us and is MrS's best friend (and was before we ever met). Does this mean he is "equal" to MrS? I don't really know what "equal" means in this context. They both are equally likely to forget to take out the trash, they both get yelled at when they overspend the budget, etc. Does a 2-year "boyfriend" have the same relationship with me as a 16-year "husband" - of course not...we are just getting to know each other. On the other hand, he is closer to me than MrS was at the same duration of our relationship (I have a little practice at relationships now :p) My current description is that I am married and my relationship with my boyfriend is "working toward" co-primary.

On the other hand the two relationships would not be "equal" even if I had met them at exactly the same time. Relationships grown, change, and develop at different rates. They are not the same person TWICE, they are different people, I have a different relationship with each of them. EACH of those relationships deserves the right to thrive and grow at whatever rate and whichever direction is appropriate for THAT relationship.

Your reply is great for me, for it allows me some insight into the kinds of domestic arrangements that poly people have. Obviously there are other kinds of domestic arrangements too, but people rarely seem to speak about such mundane things.

Now, someone moving into my household as a third member is one of the two conceivable poly relationships I would ever contemplate. Most of what is called "couple privilege" would simply disappear in such an arrangement - if it didn't, it would develop a hellish atmosphere on short order, and who wants to live in a hellish atmosphere?

The psychology of being the "new kid on the block" is fairly well known, and would tend to occur if someone moves into a household where two (or more) people already have lived together for a while. Fortunately this could not develop in my case, because the home I share with my wife is simply too small for three people. Not because we are dirt poor, but because we chose to retire to one of the most expensive cities in the world, and the choice was: do we want to live in a small place close to downtown, or in a larger place further out? We made our choice - at that time we were not yet in poly-thinking mode.

So, if a third person wanted to join us, we would have to move into a larger house or apartment. As my wife has no interest in having a lover, and I am not gay or bi, this third person would be a woman. She would have to invest into a third of the finances (otherwise she would be my live-in mistress, wouldn't she?), and assume a one-third role in all domestic work and decisions. Just to be fair and equitable, right?

At this point the "founder effect" would more or less wither away, because everyone's concerns would have equal weight in discussions. Of course there would be, at times, sentiments private to the initial couple, but everyone would be well advised to keep such feelings private. I have raised children, I know what I am talking about. There are times when a parent feels closer to the older child, just because (s)he has been around for longer, and there were times for special bonding with the first child before the second was born. But you don't show such feelings, and certainly not when the second child is around. In any case, there are compensatory feelings special to the second child, as (s)he is the younger, the one everyone (including the first child) babied more recently.

And, oh yes, no yelling in our household. Yell once too often, and it's over. Since taking out the garbage was mentioned - and this is my task usually - I may (occasionally) forget, because I am the absent-minded sort and my mind tends to be on more interesting things than taking out the garbage. So my wife (1) reminds me, gently, (2) waits until I too notice that it should be done, or (3) takes it out herself. Mono or poly, that's how loving relationships function, in my view. And yes, she also forgets to do things at times, and I react the same way. I didn't much yell at my kids either, and they grew into responsible adults for all that.

[GalaGirl]

Do you believe couple privilege exists? How would you define it? (Or how would you adjust my proposed definition?)

Definition: "Couple privilege" would be the "couple" in question inside a polyship having "special rights" or "special immunity" granted to it by all players in the group.

If all the people are cool with granting that, who am I to argue? It's their polyship to run.

Problems could arise when SOME of the polyship people EXPECT without stating it to all. Or even if all initially agreed, but the people do not make room for adjsuting it when this limitation no longer fits/works for all. Time changes wants, needs, and limits.

I would not want this for myself in polyshipping as a HARD LIMIT. I prefer a co-primary model. My spouse is further along in relationship with me. Cannot expect a person I just start to date to be on the same footing as a 19 year old relationship! He's on my will! But it would be on the understanding that "some things are earned" with due passage of time and it would be working toward a "co-primary polyship."

I could see "couple privilege" as a soft limit thing in certain situations.

How have you seen couple privilege manifest in poly/open relationships? (Examples)

Sure. "You can have sex but don't have feelings" is a classic common expectation designed to honor "couple privilege." There the couple has dibs on feelings. (And it frequently falls apart for not being realistic/reasonable!)

It pops up in time management -- deal with couple/family things first, everyone else second on the calendar. If the others are fine with that, it could work out.

Ex: One of my friends is divorced, coparenting, and a secondary for several years. He maintains his flat, GF lives with her spouse and her meta in their home. They both deal in raising their children so I get the impression that it is "arrange the kid stuff first then deal with the rest" over there.

The polyshippers understand that children's needs are what they are so they roll with it. Sometimes the "couple" is not adults, but "parent-child" couplings that need that "couple privilege" in place for a time. The kids won't be kids forever, and then we don't have to deal with kiddie bedtimes and babysitting and custody visitations times and whatnot.

I could see it in pregnancy -- metas understanding that baby could choose to be born whenever or pregnancy problems could arise and that could mean BAM! Everyone to hospital STAT! There's another place for reasonable "couple privilege" and the couple in question is the "mother and pending baby." Everyone (including the father!) has to orbit around that couple's needs first for a time.

Maybe the couple wants "couple privilege" to be able to present to society as the known couple because the polyship is not out because of risk to career, where they live and hate crime, who knows.

Again, it depends on what the polyshipping people want for their polyship and what rights/immunity they want to grant each other when.

Is couple privilege harmful, neutral or beneficial in poly/open relationships, or in the poly/open community? Why or why not?

If all parties agree to it, great. It could help them navigate life transitions (ex: new baby coming!) better because everyone understands that for this bracket of time, roles are THIS right now.

If all parties in the polyship do NOT agree to granting that couple privilege for the reasons requested, best not to polyship together if the terms are not agreeable (start of polyship) or cannot be renegotiated (established polyship.)

INSISTING on couple privilege is harmful because it's not taking other people's wants, needs, and limits into consideration. It is selfish to impose your own way on others who are not willing. Best to break up. Then nobody is being selfish and all are free to pursue their next happiness.

How has couple privilege affected your personal experience of poly/open relationships? Specific examples or personal stories are welcome.

I'm supporting a friend in divorce hell right now. They Opened with the classic "sex but no deeper feelings than friends" and it blew up when love began. The husband has just gone plain beserk with jealous rage. 'Nuff said. Ugh. :(

People sometimes forget "couple privilege" is not just the "original couple" but all couples in the larger polyship.

Once I was a hinge. BF2 had a wigginz and demanded to know how soon after I was with him was I with BF1. I sternly called him into account to explain himself because that encroached on the agreement for TMI details.

Turns out he was feeling insecure because he was afraid I was comparing their bedroom skills.

I wasn't, and seeing me rear up to defend the right of THAT couple (BF1 + me) to have privacy in its tier reassured him. Because he knew if BF1 was being nosy in the other direction I'd rear up just the same to defend (BF2 + me) and that tier's right to privacy too!

I told him was willing to ask all to get together to renegotiate TMI wall agreement if all parties felt more comfortable sharing intimiate details now and the line had to change. But until such time I was going to stick with current agreement!

He said he felt a lot better and no, he was fine with agreement with how it stood. He was just having a jealousy flare up but got the reassurance he needed from me to be able to put it down.

In hindsight I marvel jealousy management in that grouping went along so well. Nobody had a problem stating "I am jealous right now! I need____" once they realized that is what they were feeling.

I suspect sometimes "couple privilege" is invoked to avoid having to process and deal with jealousy management issues. The people want to not to have to feel jealous at all.

Which is odd to me. It seems more effective to me to grow jealousy management skills strong, so when some flare up happens it can firmly be put out. To me jealousy is a "flag" emotion that isn't anything more than "a need is not being met. Look deeper here." Why ignore warning flags and let things fester under the surface? Be all "Nooo! I don't want to see flags!" That is not healthy seeming to me.

How would you like to see couple privilege addressed in the poly/open community at large?

What community? Polyships are DIY. The polyship people write their own story for their polyship.

Ideally? Each group addresses the reality of relationship management in healthy and appropriate ways because the people in question who want to try being together are realistic, reasonable and have good communication skills and conflict resolution skills. They want to be in a harmonious realtionship together where everyone's reasonable and realistic needs are mostly met so they can all thrive.

Everyone knows and states their wants, needs, and limits. Everyone takes the other people's wants, needs, and limits into consideration. They agree on the relationship model they want to pursue together -- whatever type it is. (http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef/poly/Labriola/open.html)

They figure out how they want to be in right relationship to each other as a group -- what rights will be granted to whom, what responsibilities are assigned to whom, what expectations will be met by whom. And all the people are happy with the terms they create for themselves and have a plan in place for coping with the passage of time and fluctuations in wants, needs, and limits of the participants. People are not static objects.

It boils down to -- Make your initial agreements. Fly together for a time, making agreement adjustments as needed. Fly some more. When it's time to end it? End it well.

All relationships come with a clock attached. Even "til death to us part" is an ending. Plan to end well, when the ending time comes.

If you are part of a primary couple that chooses to handle relationships with additional intimate partners in hierarchical ways that may seem to reinforce couple privilege, what is your rationale or intent for those choices?

I already touched on that a bit above. Again, the "couple" in questions doesn't have to be the "original couple." It could other groupings. The polyship can agree to give these "couples" extra rights or immunity for a time for whatever reason the polyship finds acceptable.

If you eschew hierarchy and/or labels in your poly/open relationships, how do you “walk that talk” regarding couple privilege?

There's the banner I fly under with DH (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/member.php?u=49794). Rights, responsibilities, and limits.

New potential partners are invited to look it over, negotiate to add their things that is not covered already, and if all can accept and adopt this new flag to fly under? Well, that's the flag the new polyship flies under then! All present and accountable.

I'm not going to just put a potential on my will or my house deed immediately like DH is! He's clocked 19 years here! But it is understood to be working toward co-primaryship and things like that could be on the table in due course of time. We have to let it unfold as it does and arrive there when it arrives.

If you are a non-primary partner or solo poly/open person, how have you adapted to couple privilege in terms of how you handle relationships and what you’re willing to accommodate?

Show me the money. What's the offer here?

I don't mind dating a married/partnered person but I want to know what kind of relationship you would be offering to ME. What are the terms? I'm willing to accommodate realistic, reasonable requests for things I'd put in the "couple privilege" bucket. But I have to feel my own voice is heard in that potential polyship too or else the offer just doesn't interest me.

I have my own wants, needs, and limits. *shrug*

HTH!
Galagirl

[JaneQSmythe]

So, if a third person wanted to join us, we would have to move into a larger house or apartment... She would have to invest into a third of the finances (otherwise she would be my live-in mistress, wouldn't she?), and assume a one-third role in all domestic work and decisions. Just to be fair and equitable, right?

Okay, if that is how you see it, but I have to say that I chuckled when I read this. Just about the time that I met Dude we were in the process of moving from a 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath house to a 1 bedroom, 1.5 bath house. Dude helped us move and then moved in.

I'll just have to inform Dude that he is a "live-in mistress" since I provide 100% of the finances. PS. What is a "live-in mistress"? Is that different than a "housewife"? Where does said housewife generate 1/3 of the family finances? And he should assume 50% of the "domestic work" - since I don't do any? What if he fixes all of the cars instead? And what "one-third" of the decisions does he get to assume? What brand of shampoo we buy? He can have 100% of that decision - since no one else cares; on the other hand I am uncomfortable with him (or my husband for that matter) having 1/3 say in how I invest my 401(k) since they are 0% educated/interested in investing and it has been my personal hobby for the last 15 years.

Of course there would be, at times, sentiments private to the initial couple, but everyone would be well advised to keep such feelings private.

The non-initial couple has no "private sentiments" then? Does that meant that all of their "sentiments" are public or that they aren't allowed to have any?

And, oh yes, no yelling in our household. Yell once too often, and it's over.

Whose rule is that? If it is your rule, then good luck if your wife and your girlfriend decide to outvote you. I thought that we had a "no un-planned guests" rule (due to the fact that I am an anti-social introvert that hates people in general), 16 years of marriage and then my husband is backing up my boyfriend with the "we live here too" argument...and there are people sleeping on my floor...

Since taking out the garbage was mentioned - and this is my task usually - I may (occasionally) forget, because I am the absent-minded sort and my mind tends to be on more interesting things than taking out the garbage. So my wife (1) reminds me, gently, (2) waits until I too notice that it should be done, or (3) takes it out herself. Mono or poly, that's how loving relationships function, in my view.

Your wife is, obviously, a much nicer person than I am. Personally I - 1.) remind them gently, 2.) wait until the trash reaches the ceiling, 3.) nag incessantly, 4.) start playing Oscar the Grouch singing "I Love Trash" over the stereo at odd hours of the day at max volume. I'll be damned if I take out the trash after working an 80 hour work-week while the two of them are home all day. In my view, mono or poly, people doing what they SAY they will do is how loving relationships function... or you re-negotiate.

JaneQ

PS. I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to be mean (or more mean than usual)...my point is that each configuration will find their own balance, or they will fail. There is no equation by which you calculate what % of x/y/z each person does/is responsible for. If everyone needs are being met and it is working - good; if otherwise, then you have more work to do.

[PolyLinguist]

Ha! We would have a lot of fun arguing these things out, if we didn't draw blood first.

Okay, if that is how you see it, but I have to say that I chuckled when I read this. Just about the time that I met Dude we were in the process of moving from a 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath house to a 1 bedroom, 1.5 bath house. Dude helped us move and then moved in.

I'll just have to inform Dude that he is a "live-in mistress" since I provide 100% of the finances. PS. What is a "live-in mistress"? Is that different than a "housewife"?

A mistress, in traditional terms is a female partner of a man he is not married to (or equivalent to marriage, these days), and to whose living expenses he contributes in a significant way. There must be a word for its male equivalent, but I don't know what it is. It is not a derogatory term. But it is not the same things as a spouse.

A housewife (or househusband) is a partner who carries her (or his) weight, economically. If it's not in terms of income, it is in terms of work. If this does not happen, it's not exactly a relationship of equals, is it? Obviously, people can fall sick and simply cannot work, but that's another matter.

Where does said housewife generate 1/3 of the family finances? And he should assume 50% of the "domestic work" - since I don't do any? What if he fixes all of the cars instead? And what "one-third" of the decisions does he get to assume? What brand of shampoo we buy? He can have 100% of that decision - since no one else cares; on the other hand I am uncomfortable with him (or my husband for that matter) having 1/3 say in how I invest my 401(k) since they are 0% educated/interested in investing and it has been my personal hobby for the last 15 years.

Some of this is just legalistic quibbles.

This discussion is about "couple privilege", which - it seems - some people resent. I said that one way around it is for the third party to move in and become a participant in a three-person partnership, in which the three people are, more or less, equal. Once you live under the same roof and are in daily contact, it becomes difficult to start invoking any kind of privilege.

As for financial decisions, I usually make all of them in my mono marriage, after some discussion of the broad implications of what I plan to do. We have put everything into a common pot, and my wife is only too glad to let me decide such things. Introduce a third party into this arrangement, and things may become tricky. If she is not interested in contributing to the decision-making either, will she sign a disclaimer not to sue me in the future, whatever happens?



The non-initial couple has no "private sentiments" then? Does that meant that all of their "sentiments" are public or that they aren't allowed to have any?

Of course they do. Is it advisable to flaunt them, in the presence of the third participant? You tell me. Here we are, sitting around the fireplace in a nice romantic evening, and two of the people keep on discussing some heartwarming moments they shared together some time ago. How delightful for the third participant - no, of course (s)he won't feel left out.

Whose rule is that? If it is your rule, then good luck if your wife and your girlfriend decide to outvote you. I thought that we had a "no un-planned guests" rule (due to the fact that I am an anti-social introvert that hates people in general), 16 years of marriage and then my husband is backing up my boyfriend with the "we live here too" argument...and there are people sleeping on my floor...

I am getting confused here. Are you for or against couple privilege? But then suddenly this is "your" floor? I would never move into someone's home if it wasn't to be "our" home afterwards.

The no unplanned houseguests rule I don't quite get either. I have been married for thirty years, and I can't imagine inviting someone to stay overnight without discussing it first with my wife. Such an invitation belongs with the important decisions category - surely you don't need a rule about that, it's just one of those things in a partnership.


Your wife is, obviously, a much nicer person than I am.

This is something pretty clear. She is nicer than most people I know, which is one reason I married her.

Personally I - 1.) remind them gently, 2.) wait until the trash reaches the ceiling,

Why would you live with somebody who allows trash to reach the ceiling? I am not all that orderly, but surely there are limits to my tolerance.

3.) nag incessantly, 4.) start playing Oscar the Grouch singing "I Love Trash" over the stereo at odd hours of the day at max volume. I'll be damned if I take out the trash after working an 80 hour work-week while the two of them are home all day. In my view, mono or poly, people doing what they SAY they will do is how loving relationships function... or you re-negotiate.

Everyone can forget to do things at times, we are only too human. But people who consistently don't do what they have promised to do are not good partnership material, and I wouldn't renegotiate, I would just get out.

If I worked 80 hours a week, then came home and found that my partner(s), who stayed at home all day, didn't do a reasonable amount of work around the home, I would be awfully miffed.