Interesting Blog Post

BrigidsDaughter

New member
I found this cross posted on Fetlife and found it interesting and entertaining.

http://www.theferrett.com/ferrettworks/2014/03/willy-wonka-and-the-polyamory-factory/

"Willy Wonka and The Polyamory Factory"

Here’s a common mistake I see among newbie poly couples: Charlie has just gotten a Golden Ticket to see Willy Wonka’s Magical Chocolate Factory, which in this case is defined as “the really cute girl who does all of the freaky things that his current partner is not interested in.”
And the partner says this:
“Yes! I’m so glad! You can totally go to the factory! Just… don’t eat the caramel. And if he wants to show you the room where he beats the chocolate, don’t eat the grass. Or the candy flowers. And don’t go in the tunnel, I’m not cool with that. And if he wants to give you the factory, that’s crazy responsibility, say no.”
Now, it could be argued that hey, at least this way Charlie gets to see some of the factory – but realistically, he’s going to spend so much time worrying about whether he’s going to partner his wife off if he hugs an Oompa-Loompa that honestly, he’s going to either hate the factory or hate her.
(Obligatory note: this is not gender-specific, Charlie could be a woman, overprotective spouses come in all genders, thankyouverymuch.)
What’s usually happening when you get the Great Golden Ticket Disclaimers is that the wife doesn’t want to tell her husband, “No, you can’t go to the factory” because she knows Charlie is actually Augustus Gloop and he’s going to fall in the damn candy river. But she doesn’t want to say that, because then she’ll be a Bad Poly Partner and Charlie will be all mad… so instead, she comes up with a list of a few, uh, provisos, a couple of quid pro quos, until she’s essentially walled off all the best parts of the candy factory.
And you know what?
Charlie usually falls in the damn candy river anyway.
Sex/love/affection has an uncanny way of seeping around protective clauses. The goal with a a poly relationship should be to find someone everyone is comfortable with, not to take someone and rules-lawyer them into a semi-acceptable form. If you have to do that much work to make the candy factory safe to travel through, then you should just condemn the fucker and not let Charlie go.
And Charlie will be mad. Charlie may actually be pretty stupid, because people tend not to learn from reading essays or being given advice by friends. No, people learn from grabbing the special Three-Course-Dinner gum off the table and cramming it in their mouth and blowing up into a big purple mess when the dessert portion doesn’t work quite right, and only after they’re squooshed back down into somewhat normal size by Willy Wonka’s extremely painful machines do they say, “Wow, I probably should listen to Willy Wonka when he tells me no!”
Which leaves you with an uncomfortable choice, when the Golden Ticket appears: do you say “no,” and let them seethe for the rest of their lives about what a gloriously perfect experience the Chocolate Factory would have been… or do you let them go, watch them fall in the chocolate river, and hope they learn? Or do you let them go and discover that indeed your partner is Charlie Bucket, and gets the factory, and deal with the stress of being a lucrative candy magnate?
There’s never a good answer there. And I’m not saying, though people will doubtlessly misinterpret me, that restrictions are bad. (“Safe sex” is a pretty darned good restriction, f’rex.) What I am saying is that raising fifty million provisos because you’re too afraid to say “no” is often way more harmful than the flat “no” – because if, by some magnificent chance, Charlie follows all your guidelines and emerges from the candy factory whole, chances are good he won’t think, “Wow, all those guidelines protected me from danger!” He’ll think, “I could have had so much more fun if I wasn’t held back by all these stupid rules!”
But it really is okay to say “no.” It’s tough, when those golden gates are opening. You may even find Charlie running off, alone. But if you never wanted to own a candy factory, or deal with the unique form of PTSD one only gets when you’ve been sucked through the garbage chutes of a chocolate factory and are barely saved from the incinerator, then maybe letting him go off is the wiser choice."
 
Instead of beating around the bush and involving yourself in something you ("you" being Charlies partner) are fundamentally not ok with, just be honest up front and say "I'm not into this and am not going down that road". Setting up a bunch of obstacles to hopefully slow down the process *might* work but it certainly *will* breed resentment on all sides.

If that's the point of the article then I would agree with it on face value. While this article is written from the perspective of a parent to an incompetent child, I will try to look past it and assume that we are talking about consenting adults with fully functional brains.

Further on that note, in either case (writing up a bible of rules or pulling the rip-cord entirely) each person involved can decide what THEY are willing to put up with. This includes the curious partner and the scared partner in the Chocolate Factory example. I can tell someone what their new rules of conduct are until I'm blue in the face but choosing to accept said terms is ENTIRELY up to them. I think it's just important to remember that Charlie would be well within his rights to say "Ok, I get that you aren't into it. I'm off to the chocolate factory to have the best time imaginable and I hope you are here when I get back."

The goal with a a poly relationship should be to find someone everyone is comfortable with, not to take someone and rules-lawyer them into a semi-acceptable form.

Just out of curiosity, what does this mean? Summing up the overall goal of poly relationships would be pretty tough to do so I'm curious to hear more about this tidy manifesto.
 
My son is a rules lawyer - he knows bedtime is 10pm. If I even suggest that he go to bed at 9:55 or heaven forbid, my clock is faster than the one in his room, he will argue that it isn't bed time yet.

I think the point would be that a person could stick to the letter of the law and still hurt the person who established the rules because they don't care about the intent of the rules.

I believe the author was trying to say that it is generally preferred in poly that you choose partners who possess traits which allow for a harmonious relationship at all tiers of poly math. It is preferable to find partners who will get along with each other (in the broadest concept) rather than allowing your partner or you to establish rules which they and another person have to follow in order for you to accept your partner's other relationships.
 
I believe the author was trying to say that it is generally preferred in poly that you choose partners who possess traits which allow for a harmonious relationship at all tiers of poly math.
I don't get this. I'm supposed to choose people to have relationships with who have to be harmonious with any other partners I may have? (if that is what "all tiers of poly math means" - not sure). What if they are all different kinds of people with personalities that clash, even? Why would that matter if I'm the one they're involved with? For a solo like me, who likes to keep my relationships separate, this idea feels invasive. I mean, I am going to want to develop relationships with people who are harmonious with ME, that's all.

It is preferable to find partners who will get along with each other (in the broadest concept) rather than allowing your partner or you to establish rules which they and another person have to follow in order for you to accept your partner's other relationships.
Hmm, well seems very couplecentric, methinks, for someone and their partner to make up rules that another partner must follow. I disagree that all people someone is involved with have to get along, though. I don't even think it's necessary to know each other.
 
Hmm, well seems very couplecentric, methinks, for someone and their partner to make up rules that another partner must follow. I disagree that all people someone is involved with have to get along, though. I don't even think it's necessary to know each other.

It's certainly a couple or group centered mentality.

I agree that it makes more sense to let each relationship stand on its own. If I'm dating two women who don't like each other then they don't have to hang out with each other... that's their call. I lose out on enjoying their company simultaneously but it would be pretty egocentric of me to assume that I was entitled to it.

As a side note, it would be curious to me why I'm dating two women who don't like each other. For me, that would give me pause and I would want to keep an eye on it. Essentially, I'd be watching out for one of my partners to turn into a cowgirl.
 
While I was able to follow the metaphor, it did indeed obscure the message as nycndie said. A lot of times on Fet people try to get "Kinky & Popular" (read as: viral status) by writing things in an overly cute manner.

The main idea of the post makes some sense. Don't oppress someone with rules passive-aggressively if you're going to agree to letting your partner see other people.

Marcus is right that the corollaries, "make sure that your partners get a long" and "make sure you apply rules evenly", are very couple centric. There are lots of poly people who have metamours who don't know each other, like each other or even interact. The idea that it has to be this big open family vee is just one way of doing things.

I know from experience because I'm not involved with the other people my partner sees, other than making sure she's safe and sound wherever she goes. Even that I do through her and at her comfort level.
 
There isn't much point in contractually creating a couple and building a life as a couple unless you are prepared to prioritize as a couple. That's probably why it isn't everyone's cup of tea. Its also why some people might not want to enter a relationship with someone who is half of such a couple. I just don't see why its given such an icy reception by people who want other than. I'm sure they are less than happy when it is assumed they, for being a single, have a lasso behind their back. Can't we all get along????
This topic reminds me of when I had a general manager I saw everyday I worked and a regional manager I only saw a handful of times a year. There was a guideline my general manager wanted me to ignore and my regional manager wanted me to follow. I appeased the one I dealt with the most. I expect having more than one partner, eventually one is going to want something the other might get bunched up about. Its no different than when I want something and a partner wants otherwise. That is this "couple privilege". You've agreed prior to consider them on the same line of priority as yourself. We don't consider everyone on the same line of priority as our self. We don't HAVE to consider anyone at all on the same line of priority as our self. We could always remain a single with attachments.
 
As a side note, it would be curious to me why I'm dating two women who don't like each other. For me, that would give me pause and I would want to keep an eye on it. Essentially, I'd be watching out for one of my partners to turn into a cowgirl.

Marcus, I'm curious, why would two metamours who don't like each other lead you to start looking for cowgirl behavior? The two are not necessarily related. One could like the metamour just fine but still want you all to herself. One could hate her metamours with the intensity of 1000 suns but be just fine being poly with you.

I've read other articles by this writer and this was not one of his better ones. Got too wrapped up in the metaphor, I thought.
 
I like what opal's saying here. Everyone has their own "poly style" and one possible style is that in a vee (or other arrangement) the metamours don't get along or even know about each other. As long as no one is being hurt by this and everyone is being honest with each other, I don't think anyone should impose everyone getting along as a requirement. Would it make things easier? Yes. Could it make a more fruitful family environment? Of course. But is it required? Nope. Not as I see it.
 
As long as no one is being hurt by this and everyone is being honest with each other, I don't think anyone should impose everyone getting along as a requirement. Would it make things easier? Yes. Could it make a more fruitful family environment? Of course. But is it required? Nope. Not as I see it.

Yeah, a "family environment" would feel like a prison sentence to me.
 
Exactly. I think a lot of people bring their mono/nuclear family/breeder ideas over to the poly world and want to impose them. That's fine if that's what you and yours want for your relationship, but not everyone wants to just keep expanding their family group. Some people want to keep metamours separate and enjoy different relationships with different people.

Obviously the Hinge has to live up to promises made to both/all sides, but when one meta begins dictating the relationship of the other, there's a problem.
 
Vanquish - I find the term breeder offensive as a whole and always have as it implies that anyone who believes in procreation is intent on overpopulating the world. I am married, have exactly 1 child and would never bring another child into this world because I just can't support another, financially, emotionally, etc. I have been poly my entire life, but I have to admit that I just don't get the idea of not wanting to live in a family at all. I'm not talking nuclear family, but a family of friends and blood relations, lovers; a family of kindred spirits. Human beings are pack animals by nature, that is why we form bonds and why babies fail to thrive when deprived of that bond. Sure, not all of those connections need to get along with each other (siblings rarely get along all the time), but it is helpful when their personalities do not clash to the point of causing me undo stress or make me feel the need to be false with myself and others to please someone.

I have not read any of the author's previous work and I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but I thought it was some interesting food for though, even if he himself admitted in his comments that he got carried away with the metaphor.
 
Yeah, a "family environment" would feel like a prison sentence to me.

Exactly. I think a lot of people bring their mono/nuclear family/breeder ideas over to the poly world and want to impose them. That's fine if that's what you and yours want for your relationship, but not everyone wants to just keep expanding their family group. Some people want to keep metamours separate and enjoy different relationships with different people.

I wasn't thinking only of a nuclear family with children when I said "family environment." Yes, I am child-free by choice, and have been all my life, but I don't call every person who has children "breeders" because that's just rude and obnoxious, even though many people have children for all the wrong reasons IMHO.

Lots of people want a poly tribe/family, but that doesn't necessarily mean parents, co-parents, and a passel of children. I am a solo and enjoy living alone. Being an introvert, I cherish my privacy and ability to come and go whenever and wherever I want, without checking in with other people or having my personal space invaded. All I meant was that I don't want to live with a lot of people, especially if there are a bunch of poly situations and drama over who's fucking who going on!
 
Last edited:
All I meant was that I don't want to live with a lot of people, especially if there are a bunch of poly situations and drama over who's fucking who going on!

This I understand. I grew up in a very crowded home with 5 other people and 3 cats. I had my own bedroom at my grandmother's, but only stayed there part time. Otherwise, I've always shared a bedroom. I love living with my husband and son, but we all need space and typically can spend several hours in different rooms on different levels of the house. I wouldn't mind living next door to Wendigo, his wife, or his son and we have had interactions with them at social events, but I would not want to live with him/them or more than 2 other people ever again unless we had some really huge Victorian mansion. I am very anti poly drama, but am friends with or at least like my metamours because they are all people we met through our various social circles before becoming involved with each other. (You'd be surprised at the overlap between poly, kinky, geeky, and gamer social circles in upstate NY). This isn't a requirement on my end, but it is something I enjoy because it's always nice to spend time with generally like minded folks.
 
While I'm sorry anyone was offended by the term breeder, it is in part because you are attaching your own connotations to the word that werent my intent. I never said all people who want children are detestable. My own parents would fit into that mold. I don't make a habit of going around insulting people.

I do happen to live in the South, where the practice of following the ultra-traditional family path with procreation being the highest calling is pervasive and more than borders on cult-like and is highly oppressive. As I use the term (not how anyone else receives it), these are the people who are one category of people Im forced to relate to.

I stick by my original comment that a lot of people bring their own conventions into polyamorism and try to enforce it as normal. Live your life however you want as long as you're not hurting anyone. Just don't try to push it on me.
 
Marcus, I'm curious, why would two metamours who don't like each other lead you to start looking for cowgirl behavior? The two are not necessarily related.

On one end it would be an intellectual curiosity for me if I end up dating two people who just can't seem to get along. It would be one of those "what is it about my desires which draw me to two people who are repelled by one another?". My poly experience with multiple metamours was positive in which all of us got along pretty well and I could "get" why my partner liked them.

The situation which would make me start to immediately watch out for cowgirl behavior would be intense dislike from one party to another. Not wanting to spend time with someone for whatever reason is nothing new, but having an actually negative opinion or some personality grievance would make me wonder. That isn't to say that possessiveness is necessarily the cause but I'd certainly perk up my ears to keep an eye on it.

So it would be a matter of degree for me. What I was thinking when I mentioned the cowgirl concern was the super-drama on these boards with a metamour freaking out with high school drama regarding another metamour. I find that adults don't frequently despise acquaintances.
 
While I'm sorry anyone was offended by the term breeder, it is in part because you are attaching your own connotations to the word that werent my intent.

Well, it's not really my own connotation, but a fairly well-defined (derogatory) usage in the Childfree community:

http://kids-no-thanks-en.tumblr.com/post/31725881994/childfree-terms

http://ramonacreel.com/rants-for-all-occasions/a-glossary-of-child-free-terms/

I remember poking my head into Childfree USENET groups and the like, before I had kids - it was a good way of knowing what types of behavior bother the piss out of other people. :)
 
This all made so much sense to me. If you have never been in a relationship with a person who unknowingly uses passive aggressive and manipulative approaches to control every aspect of your life then you may not get the point of the blog. I am in that relationship now and I am finally finding ways to show her the damage she has done and why. Previously I couldn't figure out why it drive me so crazy and drove so many nails into the coffin that once was a beautiful relationship. And let me state, our relationship is not poly. The point of the blog actually goes far beyond poly. It's all the times I want to do anything fun that doesn't involve her. She is never happy for me when I get an opportunity to go do something fun.

Everything I do or don't do is about her comfort level. The answer used to always be no because she was never comfortable with anything I wanted to do. Then she "saw the light" and started letting me do things knowing if she held on too tight she would lose me. But I'm never allowed to leave without first being made to feel bad about the fact that she didn't have a similar opportunity. Then she would attempt to make sure I understood all the reasons she was uncomfortable with the situation and make sure and explain all the things I could and couldn't do while I was there. Things like how late I stay out, what kind of places we end up at, who would be there, what the male to female ratio was, how much I drink, etc, etc. and I always go anyways now because I'm not falling for her stupid control issues. What she really deep down wants me to do us say, "Oh I'm sorry honey. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then I won't go because I love you so much." But then of course if that's what I do then I'm just giving in to her controlling ways.
 
Well, it's not really my own connotation, but a fairly well-defined (derogatory) usage in the Childfree community:

http://kids-no-thanks-en.tumblr.com/post/31725881994/childfree-terms

http://ramonacreel.com/rants-for-all-occasions/a-glossary-of-child-free-terms/

I remember poking my head into Childfree USENET groups and the like, before I had kids - it was a good way of knowing what types of behavior bother the piss out of other people. :)

Again, what you expect someone else means by a word isn't necessarily what I mean by that word. Different groups use terms differently.
 
Back
Top