Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:39 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,815
Default

Quote:
In the specific -- Is that one lady acting out again and complaining at you that Maca did not make her aware of his other agreements and obligations? Or giving you beef about speaking up about the things that concern you when they leak over on to you and affect you?
No. It was reading posts on here where people were telling other posters that they don't have the right to speak up about how a metamour is treating or mistreating THEM.
GG and I got to talking about it. Then it came up in another group I'm in and I came back here and there it was again. VENT. :P

Actually-in our "real life" world. Things have been calm. The biggest emotional doozy this week-was that a plant which belonged to E, flowered these GORGEOUS blooms (I didn't know it HAD flowers). I was so touched-which sounds silly-it's a plant. But it was one she left behind when she moved out of state and I saved and brought home. It really made my day when I came home from a 2 week trip and saw it bloomed. It really brought up for me how much I miss her. She was just a FREAKING AWESOME metamour!


Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaGirl View Post


You seem like someone's behavior pushed your buttons and you are super frustrated.

In general -- Do I get what you are talking about? Sure. It's the polymath/familymath thing. What happens in one tier of relationship could affect me another. And if someone's behavior is making itself felt in one of my tiers -- I can speak up and go "Hey! That behavior over there is leaking on to me over here! Could you be willing to stop doing that?" and if they don't, I can remove myself from the line of fire so I don't get new dings from them.

As to your vent? I agree. You don't have to love everyone Maca dates. But just because they date them and he chooses to give them access to Maca?

That doesn't mean they automatically get access to everyone in his life.

That doesn't mean YOU have to play with them automatically. You have your own willingness. Maybe you don't want more than "polite meta" with them.

That doesn't mean you and Maca's kids have to play with them automatically or the automatically get invited to family shindigs. The parents get to choose who the children are exposed to. The hosts invite who gets to come to family shindigs. It's not open invite. *shrug*

It's not that hard to get -- dating a married with kids person like Maca comes with limits. Don't like the limits? Don't date the dude.

Galagirl
All of that.
Precisely that.

But you said it much more coherently than I did in my rant.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-20-2013, 05:43 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowerchild View Post
Actually, I'm on LR's side. It doesn't sound possessive, just like she's frustrated. And doing the integrated thing, versus segregated, well, there can be a lot more at stake. Especially as the potentials start becoming involved with the kids. You can't just cut off the relationship the same way as dating on the side.
OH! Yes-that is a huge one. I don't cut off ties my kids make. So for example, this summer, we had my ex's, new wife's children (who are 18 and 19) staying at our home so they could be here to visit my oldest daughter (who lives on her own-but didn't have a spare room).
Just yesterday I was standing in walmart talking with a different ex of mine (who I lived with for 3 years when I was 19-22) about the grandkids. He's still very much a part of my oldest daughters life. He, myself and Maca were the only people invited to her wedding!

We don't do the "oh we broke up so now you can't talk to them" thing with the kids. It's just... well it's cruel.
But it does mean being more careful about who we expose them to. Because they DO get attached.

That's why I say that when people are brought into MY life-they are there for life. Our relationship status might change a billion times-but we don't "end".
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-20-2013, 07:43 AM
london london is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,428
Default

Just to clarify, this is what I originally commented on:

Quote:
I got SO MUCH SHIT from the local community when I set my foot down with a woman who flat tried to tell me that I would let my daughter go socialize with her and her daughter-because she was a potential date for Maca.
He had tried to tell her no-she was walking over him.
He is soft spoken. He didn't want to offend her and he was in a quandry with himself over the fact that he liked her, was attracted to her, was caught up in "omg this might be the only woman who will date a married man in the whole state".
Quote:
It was reading posts on here where people were telling other posters that they don't have the right to speak up about how a metamour is treating or mistreating THEM.
Untrue. What I said is that it is up to an individual to ensure one relationship does not negatively impact on others. I shouldn't need to speak up about a metamour mistreating me, my partner should already be making sure that doesn't happen. I shouldn't need rules to ensure my partner(S) protect and maintain our relationship, that should be something they do naturally. I don't want to babysitting anyone. I don't want to have to speak for my partner, I don't want to have to overrule him, I don't want to have to have his relationships for him. If he needs that much help to maintain simple levels of decency, maybe he doesn't have the right mentality for maintaining multiple relationships.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-20-2013, 11:11 AM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 656
Default

Except shit happens and toes get stepped on. My partner and metamour mean well - no doubt about it, but yes, toes get stepped on. And it's much less effective to expect my partner to handle it if he doesn't understand why my toes were stepped on. Usually, in that case, things get miscommunicated. Better that she and I talk between ourselves - P doesn't even need to get involved, although we usually keep him in the loop.

P's new GF? I don't know her as well, and she hasn't done much more than small talk with me. No big deal, but it makes communication in that case a little more difficult, and I would probably get P in the loop a bit earlier. I'd still say something, though.

In a perfect world, sure, there'd be few incompatibilities, but we're all imperfect people who get hormonal, who have pop-up issues that need addressing, or who really don't understand how one action could possibly affect the other person (and P doesn't always grok what would bug me and why). It happens, and it's not caused by P's inability to manage his relationships or a need to "babysit" him.
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono, in an LTR with Chops
Chops (previously known as 'P'): partner and best friend. Poly. In LTRs with me and Xena, and dating Noa.
Xena (previously known as M1): My metamour, Poly. Also in an LTR with Chops. Dating Noa and some others.
Noa (previously AG): Dating Chops and Xena (individually).

My navel-gazing blog thread:
A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-20-2013, 07:17 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,815
Default

London-I moved my rant-because it wasn't YOU that deserved it.
I needed to vent-and yes-your post was the final straw-but certainly not alone the creation of my frustration.
I hope you realize-that this thread wasn't AIMED at you.
Which is precisely why I moved my rant-so it wasn't a continuation in that thread that would appear to be aimed directly at you when your comment was only a "final straw" on an already boiling thought process.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-20-2013, 07:24 PM
london london is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,428
Default

I understand and agree with you moving it here. I was mentioned by name, so just wanted to clarify here what I originally responded to.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-20-2013, 07:38 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
I shouldn't need rules to ensure my partner(S) protect and maintain our relationship, that should be something they do naturally.
And my piont here-is that being free to address an issue directly to the person causing it has nothing to do with "protecting" or "maintaining" our relationship.

I have no rules to "protect our relationship".
But-I do have an absolute right to refuse to have any behavior or activity involve ME or my children as I see fit.

That someone has sex with the same person I do-does not give them a right to step all over me. REGARDLESS of how our shared lover reacts.

I agree "he should" may be true.
But if he does not-that doesn't negate my right to protect and defend myself. In fact even if he does-it doesn't take that right away.

Take it out of poly and I will use a personal example.

Recently a man attempted to sexually assault me (http://aafteota.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/rape-culture/)

That no one else stepped up-does NOT negate my right to defend myself.
That this person was a FRIEND of someone else's (not me) does not mean I have to go "through" the mutual friend in order to deal with it.
It is MY RIGHT to defend myself and set MY boundaries for anyone in MY presence.

That Maca and GG and I agree and have the same boundaries doesn't change anything.
It is every single individual persons right to set the boundaries for appropriate behavior around them.

In the case of a metamour-our shared lover is free to choose their partners without my input.
BUT-not free to enforce that I have to be around that person. None of us has the right to bring anyone into the home that doesn't treat every person who lives here in ways that are expected by each of those individuals.

As roommates-we needed to ensure that we had a similar expectation for how guests would treat us-so that having guests didn't cause discord in the household.
But-if one of us chooses to bring someone in who is not respecting the limits of the household-anyone of us has the individual right to say that this is our personal sanctuary and we aren't going to have that behavior in our sanctuary.
How we state that-depends entirely upon what the behavior is.

That I have a sexual relationship or marriage certificate with one of the guys doesn't in any way diminish my right to decide what behaviors and activities I will be subject to or participate in.

That one of my roommates (who also happen to be lovers) has a sexual relationship with someone else also does not in any way diminish my right to decide what behaviors or activities I will be subject to or participate in.

Both of the guys are 420 friendly in regards to people they socialize with (neither participate as it would impact their jobs but that's not the point). I on the other hand am not.
When we chose to cohabitate the topic arose as to how we opted to handle that. The agreement is that it won't be in our home. Period. That someone does that activity doesn't mean that they can't come over. But it does mean that they need to cease and desist while here.

I expect the guys would forewarn their friends. But if they don't-I will tell them to leave. I won't be asking if they are sexually involved in one of the guys or not. I don't care. Activity is inappropriate in this home period. Doesn't matter who you are.


And while it may see "obvious"-these examples HAVE been used against me as "too controlling" in the poly community. I have been told that if one of the guys dates a woman who smokes-I need to reconsider the rule of no smoking in our home.
Um-no. The guy can reconsider where he lives.

I have been told the same regarding pot.
Um no-I have children and I'm not willing to risk the legal ramifications. The guys can reconsider their living arrangements.

We all three have our own rooms. I have been laid into over my personal rule that no one comes in my room uninvited. EVEN THOUGH this includes my lovers and my children-people assume it is a "dig" against Maca's potential girlfriends. But it has nothing to do with that. It was my expectation before their was a girlfriend option.

Quite simply-I think that there is so much emphasis on "keeping your nose out of other people's relationships" when it comes to other people who have a sexual relationship.
But not enough on the relationships that are not sexual.
The poly math example is awesome for highlighting that there are relationships beyond the ones that are sexual.

MY point is that I have a right to manage my own relationships-and that includes nonsexual ones. Metamours do have a relationship. Even if they hate each other. There is a relationship of some sort there. It's their right to address how they manage their relationship. It's not the mutual lover who has that right.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-20-2013, 07:43 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouAreHere View Post
Except shit happens and toes get stepped on. My partner and metamour mean well - no doubt about it, but yes, toes get stepped on. And it's much less effective to expect my partner to handle it if he doesn't understand why my toes were stepped on. Usually, in that case, things get miscommunicated. Better that she and I talk between ourselves - P doesn't even need to get involved, although we usually keep him in the loop.

P's new GF? I don't know her as well, and she hasn't done much more than small talk with me. No big deal, but it makes communication in that case a little more difficult, and I would probably get P in the loop a bit earlier. I'd still say something, though.

In a perfect world, sure, there'd be few incompatibilities, but we're all imperfect people who get hormonal, who have pop-up issues that need addressing, or who really don't understand how one action could possibly affect the other person (and P doesn't always grok what would bug me and why). It happens, and it's not caused by P's inability to manage his relationships or a need to "babysit" him.
Yes-exactly.

It's not that I think people should be micromanaging their lovers other relationships. It's that I don't think the shared lover should be micromanaging the metamours relationship either.
AND
I don't think that the shared lover should be expected to take on the task of doing the communicating for their lovers.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-20-2013, 11:58 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,815
Default

And-having re-read all of this again-
to sum up my issue;

a relationship doesn't affect me. A person's actions affect me.
I can't talk to "a relationship" about a problem that arises.
I can talk to a person about a concrete action that I want changed.

When we did our marriage counseling, one of the things that counselor really pressed upon us was that we needed to stop with complaining about conceptual issues and deal with the concrete.

So instead of "I feel like you aren't respecting my personal space" to address, "I do not want you in my room. For us to remain in a relationship (of whatever sort) I need to know that you will stay out of my bedroom unless you are invited by me."

This allows the other person to know what the direct and concrete action is that you are looking for. Then they can decide if they want to meet the request or desist in the relationship.

I don't buy the concept that "the relationship" is creating a problem for me. A concrete action by a specific person and whichever person that is, is the person I will address.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-21-2013, 06:43 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 6,761
Default

I am so glad I live alone, have no kids, and keep my relationships separate. It's so much simpler this way!
__________________
Hot chick in the city.

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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
boundaries, personal rights, privacy

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 12:19 AM.