Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Golden Nuggets

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:25 AM
ImaginaryIllusion's Avatar
ImaginaryIllusion ImaginaryIllusion is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,927
Thumbs up Excellent Blog Post - The Problem with "The Problem with Polynormativity"

Excellent blog post, recommended reading for all.


The Problem with "The Problem with Polynormativity"

Oct. 17th, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Quote:
Normally I agree with a lot of what Andrea Zanin and Franklin Veaux (tacit) have to say about alternative lifestyles and how to make them work, but last winter 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 have.
__________________
“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” - Chinese Proverb

-Imaginary Illusion

How did I get here & Where am I going?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:37 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Third time I've tried to read that. It's just a load of emotional rambling. What I can make out is that the author claims some people need things like couple privilege because they have issues, attachment issues. I agree but I think progress, personal growth, is admitting why you need it and learning not to need it. I think people get nasty about couple privilege because they know how they'd be mistreated. It's best when people are forthcoming about it and don't pretend it doesn't exist in their relationship. It's brilliant if they also know why it exists and own that too:

"We've betrayed each other in the past and so there are trust issues. We cannot be happy and monogamous so we allow way other outside relationships with restrictions. Those restrictions are to replace the trust we should have in each other, but don't, because of our history."

Last edited by london; 10-18-2013 at 06:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:48 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default if you are really having trouble comprehending

the jist of it could be said as this:


Essentially the author is telling the reader, that all the bullshit that happens online

*someone tells you why what works for your relationships is not OK and your dynamic of poly is wrong

* specifically the system commonly referred to as hierarchal or hieracrhy wherein for the sake of simplicity, explaining the model of your dynamic to people online your partners may be referred to as primaries, and ones not as involved in the daily responsibilities and obligations in life may be called secondaries

She is essentially saying that nobody has the right to tell you how to practice non-monogamy. If you found a way that works for you works for you, go ahead and distance yourself from any online or real life community that tries to impose their standards on you and your relationships.

Essential saying that many (several? specifically makes mention of three) "popular" poly themed authors seem to not understand why relationships they are not involved in is not there place to decide what is their choice to consent to.

I certainly agree with the author on all points, although my thoughts were much more harsh and would have included many many more expletives

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 10-18-2013 at 09:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-19-2013, 12:56 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,118
Default

Ecchh, I couldn't get through it.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein

Last edited by nycindie; 10-19-2013 at 01:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-19-2013, 06:44 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

As I've said before, someone can have a rule that is in place because of insecurities and is the only reason non monogamy works for that person at all. That doesn't remove the fact that it's due to insecurity and it doesn't mean that it cannot be something that's worked on. Some people might not want to do the work and that's fine. It doesn't take away three fact that the couple have trust issues.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-19-2013, 07:51 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default for the most part I agree

and I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone whom I had to make my bare minimum requirements like respect and honesty a rule that I had to keep track of. The thing is, everyone has those minimum standards and it doesn't make any difference to me if people I am not involved with have to write it out in a bill of rights.

Everyone has standards and while I'll admit that contracts are a little weird outside of some sort of written submission, what do I care if someone's rules have to be stated?

About eight years ago it wasn't the couples who were the bad guys it was the third wheel, but back then they weren't hot bi-babes they were cowgirls, and I've witnessed a lot of fucked up shit done to people in the name or "protecting" polyamory from this practicers of the wrong poly.

Instead of swinging to the other extreme, most days I just wish they would shut the fuck up and let people be whoever they want to be and choose any type of relationship they feel like with whoever willing excepts it

and the whole bickering in forums is pointless, as most of the terminology that people get hung up on isn't even used among actually partners, it's just the way that works to explain it online. And when the motivation to bicker is only because some author can't have anything contradict their proprietary method of poly my patience wears thin real quick

I don't know, fuck all that noise anyway, it's pointless to let it get to me
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-19-2013, 09:21 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Without going into specifics, I'm a firm believer in the notion that the only people who get a vote in how a relationship works are the people in that relationship.

There are an infinite number of reasons some might choose hierarchical relationships and they're not all about insecurity.

Working on trust issues isn't as simple as deciding you're going to start trusting someone. If they've shown untrustworthy behaviour in the past, then that trust has to be earned back. If you keep stealing coffee money from my desk drawer, I'm going to develop a trust issue sharing an office with you. It doesn't mean I have an innate trust issue about keeping money in my drawer, it means this one specific person has forced my hand. I would be a fool to just keep putting my coffee money in that drawer and come to work every day believing that you're not going to steal it. I could report you, but you're really good at your job and you make mine easier. I don't want you to get fired. So I start locking my drawer.

In other words, trust issues aren't always a matter of the untrusting person being insecure. Sometimes people do things that legitimately make you stop trusting them, and only a moron would ignore that. But maybe you still love that person even though they violate your trust, and you're not willing to throw them out over it. No one's perfect and maybe they're trying to work on their behavioural issues and you've made a commitment to stand beside them and help them through life's difficult times. But you can't do it blindly. So you have to put mechanisms in place to protect yourself against their behaviour. That's not insecurity, it's pragmatism.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-19-2013, 09:26 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtclustit View Post
and the whole bickering in forums is pointless, as most of the terminology that people get hung up on isn't even used among actually partners, it's just the way that works to explain it online. And when the motivation to bicker is only because some author can't have anything contradict their proprietary method of poly my patience wears thin real quick
This is so true. The only time I use "poly lingo" is on here and in my bi group, and then only when I'm in "educate the newbies" mode. When I'm out and about actually being poly, I just do stuff. We talk about specific behaviours or situations on a case-by-case basis. We don't use lingo because it just confuses matters, makes you spend more time defining terminology than actually addressing issues.
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:06 AM.