Jumping the hoops to make relationships work

LovingRadiance

Active member
Thinking about the other thread about std's:
Maca and I were discussing and some thoughts seemed worthy of sharing.

Relationships require some hoop jumping.
If someone is unwilling to navigate the hoops to accomplish std testing, including cost, honest discussion of risk, finding a dr, waiting for sex until resukts are obtained and shared etc.
It stands to reason they won't have the stamina or ability to withstand the myriad complications that arise in trying to bavigate schedules, emotions, responsibilities etc in a polyfamily dynamic such as ours.

I see it as a simple "pre-test" of ability and willingness to navigate complications. If they can't do that, they are better off not wasting their time with me.
 
We all have some standards a partner has to meet. I think it can be obvious when hoops are set out to essentially stop you having a relationship though. That's why it's vital that an individual sets their own hoops to their potential partners and it isn't an "active" metamour that is outlining what tricks you have to perform in order to date their partner.

If both are in agreement about what hoops are necessary, neither will have any issues when it comes to telling potential partners what the drill is and also enforcing it. The only time you'll get incidences of them not doing this is when they really don't agree that the hoop is a necessity.
 
I usually think of "hoops" as games I have to play, or stupid shit like that. Getting STD testing is not a "hoop" for me. It's easy, free (I think there are times when you have to pay for it, but TONS of places offer free STD testing), and very accessible.
 
Eh-not going to argue terminology semantics. You can replace hoops with steps if you wish. I don't care.
My point remains the same.
Galagirl often refers to it as "the price of admission".

My point is, this "price of admission" is purposeful in indirect ways as well as the direct and obvious purpose (ensuring std safety). One Indirect benefit is verifying (to a small degree) that the person is actually up for the level of work required to maintain the relationship.
 
I do call it "the price of admission." Other people call it what they will.

But to me it basically boils down to -- each person comes with their own skills and standard/expectations for behavior in relating to others. With some things there's room for reasonable compromise, and with some things there's dealbreakers. If the players are compatible and willing to play ball, they play ball. If it's not a runner, it's not a runner. Not everyone you date is destined to be a runner.

To me basic STD health hygiene matters. But their relating skills to me and my observing them relate with others and dealing with life in general will let me know if they do conflict resolution well, problem solving well, and if they can be flexible enough to be compatible with me long before sex share between us is even a question. I already can know that the relationship is best left as friends and not to pursue. As friends, these things do not affect me. As a partner they would affect me more and I don't want any hooha. Even if I find them attractive it's easier not to pursue and leave it as friends.

So I basically agree.

Relationships do require some effort. If a person cannot be bothered to put their share of the effort required into sustaining the rship? The relationship just isn't gonna go anywhere satisfactory. Not a runner.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
I usually think of "hoops" as games I have to play, or stupid shit like that. Getting STD testing is not a "hoop" for me. It's easy, free (I think there are times when you have to pay for it, but TONS of places offer free STD testing), and very accessible.

Not free in the state of California. There are SOME that insurance MAY pay for (the common top 3) once a year, all the rest including HSV 1 & 2 or more often than once a year is extra. The "free clinics" charges about $75 per test with a discount for more than one at a time.
 
Eh-not going to argue terminology semantics. You can replace hoops with steps if you wish. I don't care.
My point remains the same.
Galagirl often refers to it as "the price of admission".

My point is, this "price of admission" is purposeful in indirect ways as well as the direct and obvious purpose (ensuring std safety). One Indirect benefit is verifying (to a small degree) that the person is actually up for the level of work required to maintain the relationship.

"Price of admission" seems like a good term. A hoop for me implies effort above and beyond what is typically expected. It's a "hoop" or whatever for me to ask a friend to only see me after 9pm on weekdays. It's not a "hoop" for me to expect them to call if they're running more than a few minutes late. I feel that's just basic standards in a friendship.

I guess the biggest difference is, a hoop is a legitimate, "Look it's too hard to be a friend with you because of _____." If that "hoop" is you expect me to show up on time? I'm not going to feel bad. If it's, "It's too hard to be friends with you because you only have an hour for me a month," than that's totally reasonable.

Actually, I think that's a good litmus test for making standards in poly relationships. Is it really a fair "price of admission" or is it a "hoop"?
 
I think jumping through hoops as an action I have to go through to make the relationship happen. For instance if my partner worked an opposite schedule than me and I wanted time with them I might change my schedule to make that time. That is jumping through a hoop. Quitting smoking because my partner has asthma would be a hoop.
 
Not free in the state of California. There are SOME that insurance MAY pay for (the common top 3) once a year, all the rest including HSV 1 & 2 or more often than once a year is extra. The "free clinics" charges about $75 per test with a discount for more than one at a time.

Your mileage may vary.

I'm also in California, and when I told my gynecologist that my partner was interested in having other partners and that I would like a full range of current STI tests for his (and his prospective partners') peace of mind, she ordered a complete set of tests, including HSV 1 and 2 and HPV.

I was not charged anything. (That may be because the insurance I had then was tailored to the perceived needs and risks of college students.)

On the other hand, Xicot and I shared the cost of an HPV vaccine series for me, because I did not have any strains of HPV and am past the age where any insurance covers the vaccination.
 
. . . verifying (to a small degree) that the person is actually up for the level of work required to maintain the relationship.

The thing that sticks me about this statement is that I don't want my relationships to be work. Yes to the relationship working well, but not to my partners and I having to work hard to maintain it. I want my relationships to be easy-going, fun, light-hearted, and smooth. When a relationship starts needing work... ugh, it's probably run its course. I don't feel anymore that longevity is the gold standard that proves a relationship is working, so if it ends it ends and I can deal with a broken heart - but to try and make something work that just isn't anymore seems pointless to me.

So, while I know this thread was inspired about the one on STDs and testing, which I agree is necessary, but as a separate topic - looking at a potential partner's willingness to "jump through hoops" as a criteria for whether or not they will do the work necessary for a relationship rankles me a bit. I dislike being involved with high-maintenance people, so I don't want to have hoops for them to jump through nor be seen as high-maintenance, either.
 
The thing that sticks me about this statement is that I don't want my relationships to be work. Yes to the relationship working well, but not to my partners and I having to work hard to maintain it. I want my relationships to be easy-going, fun, light-hearted, and smooth. When a relationship starts needing work... ugh, it's probably run its course. I don't feel anymore that longevity is the gold standard that proves a relationship is working, so if it ends it ends and I can deal with a broken heart - but to try and make something work that just isn't anymore seems pointless to me.

So, while I know this thread was inspired about the one on STDs and testing, which I agree is necessary, but as a separate topic - looking at a potential partner's willingness to "jump through hoops" as a criteria for whether or not they will do the work necessary for a relationship rankles me a bit. I dislike being involved with high-maintenance people, so I don't want to have hoops for them to jump through nor be seen as high-maintenance, either.
I agree, but it's obvious that some relationships would fall apart if they aren't constantly held together with this over processing and general "hard work", usually because the people involved are barely compatible but too fearful or simply oblivious to do anything about it.

What's even worse than hoop jumping is when the hoops are obviously set by the potential metamour and not the potential partner. I also hate when they are based on faulty logic or presumptions about what you're going to need from the potential partner.
 
I agree, but it's obvious that some relationships would fall apart if they aren't constantly held together with this over processing and general "hard work", usually because the people involved are barely compatible but too fearful or simply oblivious to do anything about it.

Right. If a guy I was seeing told me it was a lot of hard work to be with me, I'd take it as an insult - unless he said it was mostly about inner work he was doing on his own personal issues. Still, even if that were the case, I'd question our compatibility and/or his emotional readiness/ability to be in any relationship. I'd rather let go of the relationship than be someone's project, whether we're poly or mono.

Being with me should feel like a respite, a pleasure, an oasis, things like that, and I'd want it to all fit together and work because ultimately we're right for each other. I'm not saying I won't deal with any difficulties or conflicts that arise, but if we're truly on the same page compatibility-wise, we would handle those things together. I just don't want it to be work simply to be in a relationship with me.

What's even worse than hoop jumping is when the hoops are obviously set by the potential metamour and not the potential partner. I also hate when they are based on faulty logic or presumptions about what you're going to need from the potential partner.

Hell, yeah. If it turned out that all the hard work a guy was doing to be with me was due to crappy rules my metamour was imposing on him, then clearly he is practicing the sort of poly that is nothing like mine, and again I would question our compatibility.
 
Last edited:
I usually think of "hoops" as games I have to play, or stupid shit like that. Getting STD testing is not a "hoop" for me.

Most relationships come with a number of assumptions built in that one could call a "hoop" or a "price", but the issues are common enough and we usually don't have to explicitly discuss them unless one of them pops up. We agree to be respectful to each other, not knowingly put each other in harms way, not get one another fired by coming up to work and streaking through the office... etc. These generally fall under "not being an asshole" for me.

Unfortunately the stigma surrounding sex and the risk of STDs makes this a discussion that is better to be had explicitly because there are a lot of different takes on what qualifies as "safe". I don't consider this to be anything other than making a statement about how much I value my health and safety. If I thought it needed to be stated, I would also note that I don't want to be stabbed or have possibly harmful boobie traps set up in my apartment, but most people seem to agree on those health hazards without it being brought up.

Health and safety are core concerns of all humans who have a care for self preservation.

So, while I know this thread was inspired about the one on STDs and testing, which I agree is necessary, but as a separate topic - looking at a potential partner's willingness to "jump through hoops" as a criteria for whether or not they will do the work necessary for a relationship rankles me a bit. I dislike being involved with high-maintenance people, so I don't want to have hoops for them to jump through nor be seen as high-maintenance, either.

To me, this thread about this idea of "work"; STD is just the topic that brought it up.

It's just a different view of what a functional relationship is in my opinion. My preference is for associations that are effortless and easy for a vast majority of the time. No doubt there will be bumps in the road but that is far different from the assumption that relationships are universally "work". For me, that just means I'm doing it wrong and I am with someone I am clearly not on the same page with and need to make an adjustment.
 
Being with me should feel like a respite, a pleasure, an oasis, things like that, and I'd want it to all fit together and work because ultimately we're right for each other. I'm not saying I won't deal with any difficulties or conflicts that arise, but if we're truly on the same page compatibility-wise, we would handle those things together. I just don't want it to be work simply to be in a relationship with me.

I totally agree with this approach, and with what London said above about some people having to constantly process because they're unwilling to recognize that they don't "belong" together.

My partner James has tons of stress in his life and part of my awareness going into dating him was the fact that I want to be a vacation for him. That's not going to be the case for all partners. And there's going to be work involved for us because we're doing poly, but I don't think it has to be some never-ending uphill battle to be with someone.

Hoops you have to jump through to be with me: be brain smart and emotionally smart; be okay with my poly; be generally cool/interesting; be capable of negotiating conflict or tricky feelings (which is part of being emotionally smart). I'd also label those "dealbreakers". Is that the same thing as "hoops"?
 
Hoops you have to jump through to be with me: be brain smart and emotionally smart; be okay with my poly; be generally cool/interesting; be capable of negotiating conflict or tricky feelings (which is part of being emotionally smart). I'd also label those "dealbreakers". Is that the same thing as "hoops"?
What you call deal-breakers are basically just your preferences for the kind of person whose company you know you'd enjoy. Those things are not what I would call jumping through hoops.

I believe the term "jumping through hoops" was originally based on what a lion tamer does at the circus: cracking a whip and forcing the big cats to literally jump through hoops in order to avoid that whip and get a reward later. It is manipulation, basically.

When it applies to people in relationships, I think it means that one partner demands a specific behavior that is not natural or easy for the other partner, as proof that they're worthy or have earned the privilege of being with the demanding one. Doing tricks to please someone and avoid punishment.

One example would be the typical "pussy whipped" guy that people make fun of because he goes to whatever lengths possible - buying gifts, doing favors, bending over backwards at his own expense - before his girlfriend or wife will deign to have sex with him. I've heard some high-maintenance women joke, "No sex for him tonight!" when they were disappointed with a gift.

Another example would be in the workplace when a boss makes unreasonable demands or piles on more responsibilities on an employee, under the threat of losing their job. The job becomes more and more impossible to function in without feeling like you have to do tricks in order to please the person in power. That is the kind of bullshit I think of when I hear or use the term "jumping through hoops."
 
Last edited:
To me:
What I mean by the hoops needed to jump thru,

Are the steps necessary in order to become sexually involved with me.

As for difficulty and relationships;

I was not speaking of difficulty in terms of trying to get along or compromise on important issues that one may feel strongly about.
I mean the difficulty of navigating scheduling and coordination. Because to HAVE a relationship it is neceesary to have personal time together in one man er or another.

But-I have myriad responsibilities which each require time. Some are predictable schedules. Like piano every Tuesday from 10-11:30.
Some change by semester, like my college class times.
Some pop up infrequently, but predictably with warning, like kids to doctor appointments, dental appointments.
Others pop up unexpectedly and with no warning-potentially disrupting any and all previous plans. Like kid emergencies (which are frequent in light of bow many kids) and parent-care emergencies (7 parents and 5 of them in varying levels of ill health).

So there is an amount of work required to make a relationship possible and sometimes that work is minimal, finding time goes smoothly for a few months.
However, sometimes its a scheduling nitemare for months on end.

I am not interested in sexual relationships with people who aren't going to be in my life for an extended period of time.
I am not interested in hurting someone unnecessarily because they want me to be their "vacation place" and I am unavailable when they need a "vacation".
 
I am not interested in hurting someone unnecessarily because they want me to be their "vacation place" and I am unavailable when they need a "vacation".
How is being unavailable hurtful? All it means is you're unavailable. Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they are entitled to get it.
 
How is being unavailable hurtful? All it means is you're unavailable. Just because someone wants something doesn't mean they are entitled to get it.

I think I get what LR is saying here. It's not because anyone is entitled to anything. It's simply that when in a relationship, I, and sounds like LR, need a certain amount of time, and want to give time and attention to another. If that is not possible - it hurts. It hurts a lot. It hurts to be unable to give that time and it hurts to not be able to spend time with a loved one. I understand LR's great reluctance to inflict that pain on someone else.
 
I think I get what LR is saying here. It's not because anyone is entitled to anything. It's simply that when in a relationship, I, and sounds like LR, need a certain amount of time, and want to give time and attention to another. If that is not possible - it hurts. It hurts a lot. It hurts to be unable to give that time and it hurts to not be able to spend time with a loved one. I understand LR's great reluctance to inflict that pain on someone else.

Exactly!

It's not about entitlement.
My children aren't entitled to a college education. But-that my oldest daughter wanted to go to college-and I wasn't able to help her financially hurt.
Did I get over it, yes. Of course, but I am happy to plan my finances for the younger children in a way that I can help if they want to go to college.

Likewise; while a partner may not be ENTITLED to my time, I want to be able to spend time with them. So it's important that we are similar enough in our priorities that we can make that happen and not have problems arise if we end up spending a half a dozen dates in a row together with kids/grand kids/parents whatever.

If someone can't even prioritize going to get the STD testing done, if they can't talk with me about STD's calmly and rationally, if they can't handle waiting for sex until the testing and talking is handled;
It's a good bet that they won't be able to prioritize talking with me about the calendar disasters that arise.
 
Meeting the "hoops" sounds like meeting the minimum standards to me. Like LR said, if you have a minimum standard of asking for STD testing, and the person is reluctant to follow through, that can be a marker for not being a potential partner. What else will they feel is not important to you, and potentially disregard or drag their feet on? Compatibility is about wanting the same things and being able to discuss the things that need compromise.

Minimum standards can be anything. Partner must be available to date (not cheating). Partner must be willing to STD test to show sexual risk factors. Partner must be willing to sit down and talk with me when I have an issue that needs resolving.

I have certainly honed my criteria over the years to reflect what I think is acceptable for a romantic relationship, and even more recently I have set more clear boundaries about time and availability. If a partner cannot meet them, then I have to seriously decide whether it is a viable relationship. These are very subjective things that are specific to me and my needs, and may not apply to everyone. But, I have discovered that certain things are important to me (When we are in the middle of a conversation, please dont go and play Words with Friends with me. You are TALKING to me for Pete's sake... If I send you a FB message, and I see that you have been on FB several times today and have not even looked at my message, I will know that I am not a priority to you, and will adjust our relationship accordingly.)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top