Attachment Styles & poly differences

LovingRadiance

Active member
Several posters have commented that they found this blog post very enlightening and helpful in seeing a broader picture, understanding people who are not like them etc.

So I figured I would share it, in it's own thread for more people to reference and comment on.

I find it helpful in understanding that the bottom line is-we are all different. There are aspects to each others lives we simply don't understand, can't understand (especially on a message board). These differences affect how we carry on relationships, how we are CAPABLE of carrying on relationships.

Not all people are capable of living the Hub style poly.
Not all people are capable of living the Family style poly.
Not all people are capable of living the Mono lifestyle.
Etc.

http://much-ado.livejournal.com/2367604.html
 
I became aware of a growing trend among the "popular" poly writers to adopt what was coming across to me, at least, as a kind of dismissiveness or denigrative attitude toward those people in the poly community who apparently aren't doin' it right: the people who do need hierarchy or who do need security based in rules and predictable expectations because trust (for whatever reason) isn't solid enough or communications practices aren't robust enough, to more fluidly and gracefully adapt-on-the-fly to the inevitable relational issues that pop up no matter what kind of relationships we h

This sums it up, for me. You see, when you tell someone that you feel a certain configuration like a closed triad or a family style dynamic raises "lack of trust/insecurity/fear based controlling rules" red flags, they become defensive. I totally understand why a lot of people need these type of things and, as the author acknowledges, it is because "trust isn't solid enough" and I dont always think that it is always an unfounded lack of trust but it exists all the same. We all know the risks of getting involved with someone in one or more existing relationships that lack trust and the like, so I don't understand why there would be surprise that people are wary of poly networks where the are signs that a lack of trust exists.
 
This sums it up, for me. You see, when you tell someone that you feel a certain configuration like a closed triad or a family style dynamic raises "lack of trust/insecurity/fear based controlling rules" red flags, they become defensive. I totally understand why a lot of people need these type of things and, as the author acknowledges, it is because "trust isn't solid enough" and I dont always think that it is always an unfounded lack of trust but it exists all the same. We all know the risks of getting involved with someone in one or more existing relationships that lack trust and the like, so I don't understand why there would be surprise that people are wary of poly networks where the are signs that a lack of trust exists.

The need for a "family dynamic" does NOT stem from a lack of trust. It usually stems from an existing life! Not everyone likes keeping their relationships separate from their family, as it takes away from their family. I find it sad that London make a point of putting people down who don't like or have the time and energy to keep all their relationships completely separate form each other. Must be nice to live London's life, where all partners can communicate extraordinarily effectively and have complete trust in each other in all aspects - they must have some special mind reading ability.
 
Raising red flags doesn't mean that it definitely exists, it means that there is a warning sign it might. But yeah, me and any partners I've had believe in trust unless proven otherwise.
 
Not everyone likes keeping their relationships separate from their family, as it takes away from their family.

Exactly. Personally I like the extended family model, and it works for us. Sort of.

Turns out that not all the children want the extended family, but that's another story.
 
Exactly. Personally I like the extended family model, and it works for us. Sort of.

Turns out that not all the children want the extended family, but that's another story.
And honestly, the kid thing is another thing for me. I'm very aware that my lifestyle choices impact on my son and try to minimise that at all costs. I try to uphold the same standards for other people's kids as I do my own. Eg. I dont do dates coming round after bedtime and wouldn't go around to a guys house whilst his kid is in bed. It doesn't matter if it's a norm for him. It's just not something I endorse.
 
Exactly. Personally I like the extended family model, and it works for us. Sort of.

Turns out that not all the children want the extended family, but that's another story.

Not all of our children do either. :) of the 3 who are out of the house now, only one prefers that model. But that is A-ok. The other two have a lot less contact, primarily via fb.
But-the people who want to be involved more than peripherally know exactly where to find everyone. :)
 
But - the people who want to be involved more than peripherally know exactly where to find everyone. :)

Good point. We don't hide who we are, but we don't push it either. We simply act as if it's "normal", and that in itself gives a level of security even to those who are not comfortable with the situation.

If nothing else, they know exactly where they have us (and who to call if need be).
 
Good point. We don't hide who we are, but we don't push it either. We simply act as if it's "normal", and that in itself gives a level of security even to those who are not comfortable with the situation.

If nothing else, they know exactly where they have us (and who to call if need be).

Exactly! I have found this is true with all of our mono friends as well. One family, she is a Deacon in the Episcopal church. LOL!
With all of them, they figured out really quickly that we weren't actually CHANGING anything-we were just acknowledging what already was.

They just don't really care.

But-even those who feel some discomfort knowing-tend to be ok after a little while of realizing that being poly doesn't mean we're going to invite THEM to participate in our sex lives and it doens't mean we're going to break out in sexual activity in front of them.
Ah the naivete. :)

It reminds me of when I came out bi and the other ladies would freak out thinking I was looking at their bodies-only to be offended when I expressed disinterest because they weren't my type (um yeah, if you are straight-not my type...) lol
 
But-even those who feel some discomfort knowing-tend to be ok after a little while of realizing that being poly doesn't mean we're going to invite THEM to participate in our sex lives and it doens't mean we're going to break out in sexual activity in front of them.

:) They were probably just suffering from some serious wishful thinking and a touch of jealousy! (just kidding). But it's funny how some people react when confronted with something they might, in some deep dark corner of their soul, want to explore themselves if only they could.

One of our neighbours keeps calling me "The Rooster". I pretend to ignore it and we get on just fine. I think it's great he can joke about it.
 
The original thread posted in nuggets was a notification of the article, and discussions of the article itself.

If LR's intention here is to discuss the concepts behind the article in greater detail, and separate from the article or author themselves, then I see no issues with this thread standing on its own.
 
I am confused - that particular blog post was already being discussed here: Excellent Blog Post - The Problem with "The Problem with Polynormativity"

LR, you participated in that thread, so I am wondering why you felt the need for another one? I think we should merge them.


BTW, the original article that is referenced in the cited blog post was also discussed here: excellent article on polynormativity
This thread was designed to try and prompt me to retract my statements about people who require a family style of poly raising red flags.
 
Nyc-II-
Honestly-I forgot about the thread.
The reason I started this one-was because there were some comments regarding it (when I linked it in a totally different thread) and didn't want that conversation to derail the thread.

But I'm totally ok with them being linked or not.

I think the topic is an important concept to consider.

We spend a lot of time giving advice regarding what is or isn't a good idea in poly.
But there's always alternatives to the "norm" even if the "norm" here isn't the greater population norm, it's still just a norm.

There's a lot of negativity towards people who do poly in a way that "breaks the norm of utopian poly".
But there doesn't seem to be so much understanding of why, as individuals, people's way of doing it may actually be the best way for THEIR group.
 
And I'll say again that a particular configuration or particular rules are often attractive because of flaws in the relationship or the people in it. If you want to argue that those flaws don't make one an altogether bad person, I agree. It can make them a bad person/bad people to get involved with relationship wise though. Like the author of this article pointed out: yes, trust is lacking between them ao they need rules for extra protection. I've discussed that trust issues in a relationship offer the newcomer a choice between discovering you have an insecure metamour or a untrustworthy (potential) partner. And that's the only point I make.
 
Back
Top