Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-22-2013, 03:27 AM
GalaGirl GalaGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,946
Default

Quote:
GG: It's a proposal for those entering into a relationship with a partnered couple.
Yes, I get that. I figured the new person is invited to articulate their stuff if not already on there and help co-create the shared personal polyship standard, right? If they choose to be in this polyship, this is the standard of this polyship for all players.

Perhaps lay out the expectation for how this ends, should it have to end? And the polyship breaks up?

GG

Last edited by GalaGirl; 04-22-2013 at 03:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-22-2013, 03:38 AM
CherryBlossomGirl CherryBlossomGirl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaGirl View Post
Yes, I get that. I figured the new person is invited to articulate their stuff if not already on there and help co-create the shared personal polyship standard, right? If they choose to be in this polyship, this is the standard of this polyship for all players.

Perhaps lay out the expectation for how this ends, should it have to end? And the polyship breaks up?

GG
I think that both of these things should definitely be included. How would you word that?

I have a right/responsibility to........?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-22-2013, 03:38 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,170
Default

BP-I appreciate this. Great start!
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-22-2013, 08:49 AM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoringGuy View Post
if i came at a potential new relationship partner with it, i would totally understand if they were all like "WTF?" or didn't want to get in the middle of all that. .
I would laugh all the way out the door to be honest. But I feel if people are willing to engage in that sort of thing than good luck to them but they run the risk of not having any secondary relationships at all.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-22-2013, 01:38 PM
Cleo Cleo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Default

interesting and thought provoking.

I am someones primary, I am someones secondary, I have a secondary, I am metamour to my primary partner's secondary.

Is it just me or are there other people reading this who don't feel they have the 'right' to ANYTHING?

Who gives me this right?

It's just really... puzzling to me that someone would describe these things (which to me sound like things you would prefer to happen, wants, desires, preferences), as 'rights'.
__________________
early forties, straight.
the guys: Ren - husband; Curlz - bf of 2 years, Brig - bf of 7 months; Knight - non-sexual bf; MrBrown - it's complicated
Ren's girls: Lou - gf of 2 years, Liz - very new gf
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-22-2013, 01:44 PM
opalescent opalescent is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: US
Posts: 1,286
Default

I also would not use the word rights - maybe expectations or statements like 'I will do such and such'. If someone presented this to me as a here , sign on dotted line, I would certainly run for the hills. But if this and the secondary bill of rights were a starting point for discussion, that would be just fine with me.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-22-2013, 01:47 PM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 822
Default

Hmmm, yes, it is very much a possession based mindset I think.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-22-2013, 01:51 PM
Cleo Cleo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Default

yes. to me there is a tremendous difference between this


Quote:
Originally Posted by BaggagePatrol View Post

I have the right to change the structure or pacing of any of my relationships.
and this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaggagePatrol View Post

I have the right to your compassion
the first quote, yes of course, I have the right to do what I want and to structure my relationships any way I want.
But the second quote? who or what gives me the right to someone else's honesty / consideration / compassion / whatever? It is their choice to treat me the way they want to treat me, and then my choice to tell them I'm okay being treated that way. So all 'rights' that are about someone else's behavior, to me, would need to be redefined as wishes, wants or expectations.
__________________
early forties, straight.
the guys: Ren - husband; Curlz - bf of 2 years, Brig - bf of 7 months; Knight - non-sexual bf; MrBrown - it's complicated
Ren's girls: Lou - gf of 2 years, Liz - very new gf
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-22-2013, 02:47 PM
BoringGuy BoringGuy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperskeptic View Post
I understand the impulse here, but it seems to me the language of rights is out of place in personal relationships, at least if 'rights' = 'things to which I am entitled, which therefore place an obligation on you'.

If you want to formalize something, it might be more helpful to think of it as a "Charter of Mutual (Reasonable) Expectations". As it happens, many of the points set out above might fit more readily under "reasonable expectations" than under "rights".


I'm late catching up to this discussion, but i also like this "title" better. Something about the original post rubbed me the wrong way (i was kind of bored by the "secondary bill of rights" thing too which has a lot of Franklin-Veaux-isms about it, so i thought that was what annoyed me. Well it DOES annoy me sometimes, but it's not the only thing that does), i couldn't put my finger on it because there was nothing absurd about the ideas contained within... Believe me i tried to find something absurd to pick apart and couldn't, lol. Now i realize that it's the word "rights" or "bill of rights", as if the people in a relationship are each other's government and they have to declare all this stuff so the government doesn't violate their "rights". Although i do not feel entitled to anything FROM another person, i do feel entitled to take control of my own attitude, and "rights" have very little to do with that, i just do it and don't worry about my "rights". At least until the government of my country starts keeping records about my personal life...

Now that i think about it, i'm not crazy about "charter" either, because it makes it sound like i'm running my relationship with a board of directors or something. I like the word "list". Short, accurate and boring. I like boring. It keeps things simple. Simple is good. That is all.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-22-2013, 02:55 PM
hyperskeptic's Avatar
hyperskeptic hyperskeptic is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoringGuy View Post
Now that i think about it, i'm not crazy about "charter" either, because it makes it sound like i'm running my relationship with a board of directors or something. I like the word "list". Short, accurate and boring. I like boring. It keeps things simple. Simple is good. That is all.
Fair enough. I suggested "charter" with tongue in cheek, though. It is too formal.

I'm also thinking beyond this thread, in that I'm not really paying much attention to the primary/secondary distinction . . . which suggests maybe I should start a new thread of my own.

I'm thinking about what puts the ethics in "ethical non-monogamy", and my thought about "reasonable expectations" in personal relationships is modeled on professional codes of ethics.

So, the aim would be to articulate a code of ethics for relationships, one that could apply regardless of such qualifiers as "primary" or "secondary". They might start with some fundamental canons: avoid harm; respect and support capacity of others to make decisions for themselves; etc.

But, really, the code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules . . .

Last edited by hyperskeptic; 04-22-2013 at 02:58 PM.
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 03:19 AM.