Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-01-2013, 01:45 AM
Murasaki's Avatar
Murasaki Murasaki is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inyourendo View Post
My obligations to my family (children and spouse) work and school come first. if I meet someone they get fit around that schedule. For instance, I work 3 nights a week, I have 4 nights at home. N and I agreed that we would each only spend the night 1 night a week elsewhere, that would give us 2 night a week together as a family. I think that is reasonable. if another partner had an issue with that then it's a shame because it's not something I'm willing to change.
What if the new partner wants to negotiate for another sleepover? Would you consider the new partner spending the night at your place? (Kids might make that unrealistic depending on how you handle introducing partners to your kids)

Maybe a hypothetical would work. Say the kids are spending the summer with the grandfolks. Would it then be something that could be negotiated where your partner could spend a night with you at your home? Or where your spouses partner could spend a night at your home (while you are working)? Or since the kids are not home maybe increase the overnight outside the home?
__________________
Me - Murasaki - Bi/pan
LTR SO - Kuroi - Straight (broken up-not sure what we are now)
Child of Murasaki & Kuroi - Momoiroi

In LTR of 20 years, married for 13 years to Kuroi
Didn't realize we had a poly type relationship in High school. Exploring poly again now that our Child is older.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-01-2013, 02:01 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,436
Default

Marcus-my exact request was for no forward steps to her being brought to our home for a couple of weeks. I never have asked that either of my partners step back from a relationship. I didnt ask that they even not see each other. I didnt want her around me.
She did absolutely start a smear campaign. Since I refused to participate, it ended up becoming a situation (after almost a year of pointed harassment) where I had to consult an attorney about filing a restraining order.
Mind you, she was not ever invited to our home in that time because after her nastiness erupted the first week, GG was not ok with her being there either. Maca was unhappy with the behavior, but kept trying to talk it out with her to resolve things. It took him 8 months to decide it was hopeless.
And as a reminder, this is someone he was not dating. They met for coffee, had dinner and introduced each other to friends/family. But she made it clear before meeting me that she wasnt interested in dating him or being sexually involved.
She was angry aabout feeling like my request to not have her in my home (she had only ever been there one time) infringed on her rights as a potential FRIEND.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-01-2013, 02:11 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,436
Default

Murasaki-absolutely! We had help from our adult daughter and her husband, my mom and stepdad and my sister. The other family is spread far enough they werent readily available.
But- as noted, this wasn't a request to stop a relationship, deter or even set boundaries on frequency of visits/contact.
It was actually a request to not have her in my presence while I was already suffering. Ironically-she wouldnt know, but it wasnt just her. I dont care for any people I am not close to around me during a crisis.
Even in labor and delivery, no nurses, no friends, no extra family. Just my SO and dr (or midwife).
Medical vulnerability for me is significant and I dont want people I dont trust *in that circumstance* around me.

Which-in my opinion is a minor request.

But it erupted into a shitstorm that acquaintances in Washington who were involved in helping start the poly group here witnessed.
I suppose its telling that I exited silently.
The drama ensued.
It took about a year and most of the original people reached out to me with "I just didnt know what to do" explanations.
But for me personally-I see it as a burned bridge.

I don't accept that its ok to stand by and allow someone to be so abusive (details logged in other threads) and a group not step up and say "we dont allow that behavior in our social events". Its not side taking. Its expecting adult behavior. But-that is not the attitude here.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-01-2013, 02:15 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,436
Default

And yes-I like the way you laid out your example.

Negotiation isnt about control necessarily. It is about working a new thing into an existing thing.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-01-2013, 02:18 AM
Inyourendo's Avatar
Inyourendo Inyourendo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Crazytown USA
Posts: 1,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murasaki View Post
What if the new partner wants to negotiate for another sleepover? Would you consider the new partner spending the night at your place? (Kids might make that unrealistic depending on how you handle introducing partners to your kids)

Maybe a hypothetical would work. Say the kids are spending the summer with the grandfolks. Would it then be something that could be negotiated where your partner could spend a night with you at your home? Or where your spouses partner could spend a night at your home (while you are working)? Or since the kids are not home maybe increase the overnight outside the home?
Partners spending the night while N or I are gone is fine.
__________________
Sue, hinge in a vee with Nate (Polysexual) and Sam (monogamous)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-01-2013, 02:23 AM
Inyourendo's Avatar
Inyourendo Inyourendo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Crazytown USA
Posts: 1,098
Default

Kids being out if the house really wouldn't make a difference. That's still only 2 nights out of 7 with N.
__________________
Sue, hinge in a vee with Nate (Polysexual) and Sam (monogamous)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-01-2013, 02:25 AM
Inyourendo's Avatar
Inyourendo Inyourendo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Crazytown USA
Posts: 1,098
Default

Special circumstances like a weekend trip.would require special consideration. We aren't completely rigid.
__________________
Sue, hinge in a vee with Nate (Polysexual) and Sam (monogamous)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-01-2013, 04:28 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Quote:
My OP is referring to how new relationship affect current (older) relationships. And how older (current) relationship affect new ones. There is an effect on both. I understand that people already apart of a set Polyship are going to be considered when negotiating wants/needs within my relationships (it’s the sensible thing to do). I’m talking about new ones, and how they affect the network (using your terminology). My polyship is quite small, so not much of a network.
Regardless of whether it's a new relationship or a first date, you still have to consider the needs of the other person. I would find it very rude if someone I was going on a date with was more interested in accommodating their wife's needs than thinking about what I might need for the date to have a chance at success.

Quote:
The scenario does not have to refer to a primary type relationship, just a relationship that is settled, has a rhythm, and now is adjusting to a new relationship that may or may not actually take off.
Again, just because you haven't formalised any sort of relationship agreement or commitment to someone that you are interacting with, it doesn't mean that their opinions get to be dismissed, or deemed less important than those of your partner. Not unless they are okay with their needs being secondary and not really considered until they agree to a relationship with you. Personally, I wouldn't be able to bond sufficiently with anyone who made me earn the right for my opinions about our relationship to be considered; we would never be able to get to relationship stage. You can easily replace primary with "relationship that has existed the longest". Because that is what you are asking, isn't it? You are creating this dichotomy between meeting the needs of your existing partner and meeting the needs of potential/new partners. You can actually do both if your existing partner's needs are reasonable and do not continuously impact on the other relationships you have.

Quote:
Not every person I date will actually turn out to be a new partner for me. I do however want the option for that new person to turn into more than just a friend “getting to know you “ date. So I will talk with my partner(s) about how I feel, and see how they feel, and what may need to be negotiated. I have responsibilities to the people who are already apart of my partnership, I do not have the same responsibilities to someone I’m just now getting to know.
See, what would be logical to me is to discuss what that person would need for that option to be there and then I would consider whether I can meet those needs given the obligations I already have. Discussing how I develop new relationships, ie my polyamory, is something that should be settled between any existing partners already, before there are any potential partners on the scene. So, when I do meet someone else, I think about interacting and bonding with them and not having to console my existing partner(s). I am or should be already meeting their needs. We already know what my obligations and how much time I have to spend with any additional partners. I know that I will need to find someone who doesn't require an amount of time that I am unable to give as well as maintain the relationships and responsibilities I have already. Why will my existing partner's needs suddenly going to drastically change now I have someone else on the scene? If that was a regular occurrence, I'd certainly question whether it was a manipulation technique.

Quote:
I do however expect someone new to also be willing to be flexible, and understanding of my non single lifestyle.
Yes, all parties have to be flexible and adaptable. That includes people in existing relationships. If you want to have a relationship with other people, you have to be able to meet their needs, create the environment they need to bond with someone in that way as well as what you need or the relationship has no chance of success.

Quote:
Does stating things in this way help to see that the existing relationship isn’t “controlling” the “new” relationship?
I think that if there are rules and agreements in the existing relationship that define how and when one interacts with potential partners, then the existing relationship is controlling new relationships. My obligation to my existing partner is to meet the needs that he has of his romantic partner(s). When I stop doing that, I am then being a less than responsible partner. If his needs included controlling the way I interact with new partners regardless of whether I am fulfilling my obligations to him, it would be me and him that have the incompatibility. If my new/potential partner needed me to shirk my ongoing responsibilities in order to create a relationship with them, that would be a sign of our incompatibility. I will not treat someone badly (by dismissing their needs) in order to maintain or build another relationship.

Quote:
Therefore (in my eyes) it is not just that the existing partner that needs to be accommodating to the new partner, it is also the new partner who needs to be accommodating to the existing partner(s). Again I acknowledge that this “accommodation” isn’t as big for the solo polyists.
I absolutely agree that both people have to be flexible and acknowledge that their shared partner has obligations to more than one person. I disagree that "solo" poly involves less accommodation of this kind: just because I might not see/meet/interact with someone's wife, it doesn't mean that I don't have to constantly make sure my needs are not impeding on her needs. The difference is that I don't view the wife's needs as more important than that of new or potential partners. From the time I start to consider a relationship with someone, or I am interested in interacting with them in a romantic and /or sexual way, what they need for that budding union to potentially blossom becomes as important as my needs and any of my partner's needs. Being as important doesn't mean that everything will go their way, but it means they will be given an equal voice, equal consideration, whilst I decide how best to proceed. This might mean that I hear their needs, acknowledge that I am unable to meet them with my current obligations and decide that I therefore cannot ethically build a relationship with them.

Last edited by london; 10-01-2013 at 04:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-01-2013, 12:55 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingRadiance View Post
Medical vulnerability for me is significant and I dont want people I dont trust *in that circumstance* around me. .
That's not an accommodation that needed to be made for a current relationship, that sounds like someone in the house is very sick and doesn't want trouble making trash stomping around the house - and said so.

I don't think that has anything to do with how their relationship was progressing, that's just a specific boundary "Don't bring that crazy asshole here please." If your partner had decided he didn't want to respect that boundary and wanted to bring her around anyway, someone would have needed to move out.

Protecting yourself from harassment and abuse is not optional and doesn't have anything to do with couple privilege.

LR, please move your family out of that place!! You live in the wilderness of insanity!!
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-01-2013, 04:55 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post

LR, please move your family out of that place!! You live in the wilderness of insanity!!
We are working on it. Alaska is a VERY VERY different place.
Some things are good.
Some are SO NOT.


(FYI-there was never a question of respecting the boundary, but she just would not let it go)
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
couple privilege, privilege, responsibility

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 10:33 PM.