Need some advice for my first real negotiating meeting

[SchrodingersCat]

Originally Posted by Anneintherain

I did not hear her say it was a sensitive topic for him

Originally Posted by Cleo

Any advice how I can bring these sensitive things up?

She didn't specify that it was sensitive "for him" but she called it sensitive in general, which I interpreted as meaning for him...

But now I'm just nitpicking for no particular reason. I think we're on the same page in terms of sculpting the delivery to fit the recipient. Cleo has lots of options now, and a variation on one of them should be suitable for her situation.

[Cleo]

thanks all, for your input! I really appreciate it... the reason I haven't been back to this thread is that before the planned Talk with my husband, I'm visiting my BF (haven't seen him in almost 2 months) and I have some serious stuff to discuss with him too, about boundaries / communication / intimacy. And I'm finding it hard to prep for 2 potentially difficult relationship conversations at once Poly is hard work sometimes!

More later.

[AggieSez]

Hi, Cleo

Just curious -- is this meeting only between you and your husband? Or will your other partners also be involved? It sounds like your additional relationships are pretty well established; they're not brand-new or casual. If you and your husband are basically negotiating aspects of your relationships that will directly affect your additional partners, it would be fair and respectful for them to have their own direct voice in those negotiations. It's their relationship, too.

[SchrodingersCat]

Originally Posted by AggieSez

If you and your husband are basically negotiating aspects of your relationships that will directly affect your additional partners, it would be fair and respectful for them to have their own direct voice in those negotiations. It's their relationship, too.

While I see your point, that one couple should not negotiate boundaries for another couple, I disagree on this particular point. This is about whether a certain person is allowed to sleep in someone's home.

Your home needs to be a safe place. If you would feel put out or uncomfortable by having someone in your house, then that person's desire to be in your house is irrelevant. It's your house, not theirs.

[Cleo]

Originally Posted by AggieSez

Hi, Cleo

Just curious -- is this meeting only between you and your husband? Or will your other partners also be involved? It sounds like your additional relationships are pretty well established; they're not brand-new or casual. If you and your husband are basically negotiating aspects of your relationships that will directly affect your additional partners, it would be fair and respectful for them to have their own direct voice in those negotiations. It's their relationship, too.

we don't really do things that way... I talk to my BF about my needs and wants and his needs and wants in the relationship I have with him, and he trusts me to bring his needs and wants to the table when I talk to my husband, and my husband trusts me to 'represent' his needs and wants when I discuss things with my BF.

That said! we had the meeting and it was awesome!!!
We discussed all relationships that are currently going on in our poly configuration, including the ones that are nothing but potential relationships.
When we came to my relationship with C, I said "ok, I want you to think about something, you don't have to decide today, I would just like you to think about the possibility of C spending the night here when you are also home." I immediately made clear that it wasn't about sex, but about me wanting to spend time with C in my city, and that we would all sleep in different rooms, and that he would not hang around the whole day ater the visit. I was SO surprised but my husband said that he's willing to try it, and see how we all feel. "Let's experiment", is what he said, and that's much more than I'd hoped for
So, big success, and my BF was so happy about it, and we're planning the first sleep over soon.
So, this was another case of me being way too nervous for something that turned out to be relatively simple.

[Cleo]

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat

If your husband has forgiven the cheating, do you think it's helpful for you to hold a grudge?

You don't have to like your husband's girlfriend, you don't have to spend time with her. But if you're going to expect your husband to approve of your boyfriend staying a night in your house, then it seems only right that he should have the same privilege. I'm big on "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," provided the goose and gander actually want the same thing.

Wanted to respond to this as well. I don't hold a grudge, but I've never really liked her, and the cheating part hasn't helped with that, and I don't want to share my space (and my bathroom) with someone I don't like.
Also, because I spend 1, sometimes 2, nights a week at my BF's house, she can spend those nights in my house with my husband - which is fine with me. And, because my husband often works from home, she sometimes comes by for lunch and I'm pretty sure a lot of those lunchdates stretch into afternoons in the bedroom... which is also fine with me, as long as I'm not there and as long as the house is tidy when I get home!

So these are all opportunities for my husband to spend time with his GF in our house that I don't have with my BF. And because my husband can't spend the night at her place, (roommate issues), I don't have the same privileges he has when it comes to having people spend the night. But on the other hand, I can stay at my BF's lovely house and take little minivacations there, which is something my husband can't do. So there is an imbalance already... and btw, my husband never even mentioned that he would want her to spend the night while I am home. I don't think he'd even want that, for fear of drama

[AggieSez]

Cleo, I'm glad your negotiations went well, congrats.

I understand that your preferred negotiation style is not to include your additional partners directly in negotiations about your network of relationships; that you and your spouse choose to "represent" your respective additional partners in negotiations, and convey the decisions you make back to them. I'm glad that so far this seems to work well for you. I hope it's also working well for your additional partners.

I'd ask you to consider the long-term implications of this negotiating style.

What often happens in the long run when negotiations are handled hierarchically and indirectly is that a "game of telephone" crops up. In any situation where people are speaking and negotiating on behalf of others, and direct communication/negotiation isn't part of the process, errors of interpretation or omission are especially likely. That's not a big deal when things are running relatively smoothly -- but during a conflict or crisis, indirect communication often amplifies problems or misunderstandings and prevents collaborative solutions.

That's why it's usually easier and safer in the long run (though at first perhaps a bit awkward) to do at least some regular direct communication/negotiation that involves additional as well as primary partners. If you get used to this process on small issues, when things are running well, you're more likely to navigate inevitable major crises, changes or conflicts with less stress and risk.

You might want to clarify *why* you don't currently include your additional partners directly in negotiations about your network of relationships. What are you trying to preserve, protect, or avoid? There may be other (and fairer, and less risk-prone) options to achieve those goals.

Also, from the perspective of an additional partner, this direct approach to negotiations is more fair and respectful. Many poly people prize fairness as a value, and this is a key way to walk that talk.

Whenever someone is deprived of a direct voice in matters that affect them directly, that set up an unbalanced power dynamic that puts the voiceless at a significant disadvantage. The effect, too often, is that their needs (as well as whatever ideas or resources they have to offer) are more likely to get less consideration, and they may be treated more disposably.

Just something to consider.

- Aggie

[nycindie]

Cleo, I am glad to hear how well the conversation went for you -- and I look forward to reading your posts after your bf starts staying over!


Aggie, not everyone wants or needs to conduct their relationships like one big happy huddle. It's perfectly fine and valid to manage multiple relationships separately, whether there is a hierarchy or not. They do not live communally, are not all involved with each other, and it seems they have a method that works for them and respects their autonomy. I see no problems in how Cleo and her husband communicate with and on behalf of their lovers. Just because her bf wasn't sitting down at the table with them doesn't mean he didn't have a direct voice. Cleo expressed for him what he wanted expressed, and posted that the bf is happy with the results of the meeting! If it ain't broke...

[GalaGirl]

GLad it went well!

GG

[Cleo]

Originally Posted by nycindie

Cleo, I am glad to hear how well the conversation went for you -- and I look forward to reading your posts after your bf starts staying over!

Thanks! we have the first sleep over planned, it will in 2 weeks very, very excited about it, and I'll be sure to report back on my blog!

Originally Posted by nycindie

Aggie, not everyone wants or needs to conduct their relationships like one big happy huddle. It's perfectly fine and valid to manage multiple relationships separately, whether there is a hierarchy or not. They do not live communally, are not all involved with each other, and it seems they have a method that works for them and respects their autonomy.

Yeah, this is how I see it. Unless we were all living together, or spend a lot of time together on a regular basis, I don't really see the reason to have a meeting with the 3 of us present. Personally, I would never expect my other BF, to whom I am a secondary, to include me in his talks with his primary GF about how he divides his time. I haven't even met her, yet he and I have been together for almost a year (although we don't see each other very often, we have a strong connection), and there's never been an issue.

Aggie, what you said

I understand that your preferred negotiation style is not to include your additional partners directly in negotiations about your network of relationships; that you and your spouse choose to "represent" your respective additional partners in negotiations, and convey the decisions you make back to them. I'm glad that so far this seems to work well for you. I hope it's also working well for your additional partners.

makes it seem like I think that my husband and I, as the Couple, are somehow in charge. But like I said, it works the other way around too - I represent my husband when I talk to BF. I expect my other BF to represent me when he talks to his primary about spending time with me. And if C. (the BF who is now coming for a sleepover - sheesh it gets confusing with so many BF's ) finds another partner, I would expect him to represent her needs when talking to me, and mine when talking to her.

I could only see this changing organically, for instance when my BF were to spend a lot more time in my house and with my husband around, they would develop a relationship of their own, and it would make sense to talk together about stuff. Right now, it doesn't.