Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-13-2010, 04:33 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
I guess that we both agree that two (or more) persons can only join a polyamorous relationship on equal footings.
Nice theory, but I have seen some very happy poly arrangements flourish where the footings are, by choice, and by most people's standards, not equal.

Perfect example of what I was trying to say in my previous post.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb

Last edited by CielDuMatin; 05-13-2010 at 04:39 PM. Reason: punctuation typo
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-13-2010, 04:36 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,376
Default

I think we should talk about things being fair rather than equal. Of course fair is subjective, but that's the point: it's not up to an outsider to look at a relationship and decide if it's "equal" enough. It's up to the partners inside of it to make sure they don't feel like they're getting the short end of the stick and they don't feel like someone else in the relationship is getting it, either.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-13-2010, 04:59 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
When you explicitly don't identify as polyamorous yourself, I can't really understand why you keep on insisting on definitions of polyamory that quite a few polyamourous people, me including, think are plain wrong.
Quite a few but not all is the key and I do own it as my interpretation. I'm not imposing it on anyone else. Lots of people who are not monogamous refer/define the word monogamous on here too; no harm in that but again they do not impose it on me. I respect thier definition and consider it different but not wrong.

Loving is a necessity for all loving relationships not just poly.

I didn't misinterpret Ariakas at all. Sorry I confused you
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-13-2010, 06:12 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

I love what you are saying Ceil. I agree with your foundations. However the thread is about rules/principles rather than foundations. Actually I like foundations better. After foundations comes rules and principles to me.

I have no problem with people wanting to make symetry a rule/principle. That would be their choice. I have known poly tribes/families (well one) that practice Ds and that has meant they all agree to not be symetrical, so therefore that rule/principle would not fit. That to me would make it not a poly rule/principle then, but really I don't prescribe rules and principles anyways so don't really care that much. I understand that others do though, so they can argue the semantics.

How come there isn't a POP? One pussy policy? Hmmmmmm?! :P That's what we had for a bit. After nerdist came out of a very trying relationship.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-13-2010, 06:17 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
However the thread is about rules/principles rather than foundations. Actually I like foundations better. After foundations comes rules and principles to me.
So did you just recently change the thread title to foundations, or did I misread it originally?

As long as we're not trying to come up with some universal set of rules, foundations, paradigms and principles (whatever we choose to call them), then I am fine. I was starting to see some pretty broad generalisations and I don't think it behooves us to get into "the right way to do poly" territory.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-13-2010, 06:29 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
Nice theory, but I have seen some very happy poly arrangements flourish where the footings are, by choice, and by most people's standards, not equal.

Perfect example of what I was trying to say in my previous post.
I think you mix up principle and practice. Footings not equal in principle would be like an emperor entering into a "poly" relationship with a conquered slave. You seen much happiness coming from inequity like that?

In practice, they are never quite equal, and that could even be an important success factor. In practice, perceived "fairness", as Tonberry mentions, is probably a very good working criterion. Because, as she writes
Quote:
Of course fair is subjective, but that's the point: it's not up to an outsider to look at a relationship and decide if it's "equal" enough. It's up to the partners inside of it to make sure they don't feel like they're getting the short end of the stick and they don't feel like someone else in the relationship is getting it, either.
Exactly. It is possible that this underlying equality is so self-evident to you that it does not need to be mentioned. But I think I see examples cropping up all the time showing that it is not trivial, and therefore, I really can't see any harm in including it in the foundation.

None of these criteria are up to outsiders to decide, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-13-2010, 06:41 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
As long as we're not trying to come up with some universal set of rules, foundations, paradigms and principles (whatever we choose to call them), then I am fine. I was starting to see some pretty broad generalisations and I don't think it behooves us to get into "the right way to do poly" territory.
So, then what is, in your view, wrong with Ariakas' suggestion

Quote:
love - check
ability to love multiple - check
trust/honesty - check
communication - check
my poly is not your poly - check
As far as I can see, the only disagreement is to whether something like balance(equity/symmetry should be added. Not as a testing criterion, as many seem to think, but as a basic principle - which it may seem some would think is unneccessary, as it is so obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-13-2010, 07:46 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
As far as I can see, the only disagreement is to whether something like balance(equity/symmetry should be added. Not as a testing criterion, as many seem to think, but as a basic principle - which it may seem some would think is unneccessary, as it is so obvious.
We're looking for testing criteria? Why? Is someone about to form some sort of certification board, or litmus test for whether a given relationship is or isn't "real" poly?

I am not going to get into debates over individual things about what is, and isn't poly - I used to try to do that and got frustrated when I couldn't. I am merely trying to point out that, in my experience, trying to do so is folly, and I am willing to provide some counter-examples. I actually like that we can't come up with some box-like definition of what is and isn't, or how it should or shouldn't work, or what the underlying paradigms are beyond it being loving, responsible non-monogamy. As an old debating "foe" of mine used to say, as soon as you draw a box around it, you exclude people who could otherwise feel included.

Maybe I missed something in a post (I am only on here a limited amount of time a day), but what is your motivation/need to lay things down this precisely?

So... what are we trying to do here? Are we trying to come up with recommendations for principles and paradigms of how most people find poly work well, or are we trying to come up with a set of criteria to define what poly should be? Because those are two very different discussions, and I am pretty confused. (Doesn't take much, I know! )
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-13-2010, 08:01 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
So did you just recently change the thread title to foundations, or did I misread it originally?

As long as we're not trying to come up with some universal set of rules, foundations, paradigms and principles (whatever we choose to call them), then I am fine. I was starting to see some pretty broad generalisations and I don't think it behooves us to get into "the right way to do poly" territory.
No Ceil, I am an idiot and forgot the name of my own thread! Such is the life of a phone using forum writer I'm afraid. *embarrassed*

My intent on this thread was to find out peoples personal thoughts on what they think poly is about at its base. In an attempt to better explain the differences between poly and other relationship styles.

I figured there would be generalisations, but I personally don't mind so much as long as its said they are. I am hoping to put to words what *I* think *my* poly rules/foundations/priniciples are... Its coming together slowly.

Thanks for clarifying that there is generalizations. I think that needed to be said at some point and now you've said it. Thank you.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-13-2010, 08:45 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
We're looking for testing criteria? Why? Is someone about to form some sort of certification board, or litmus test for whether a given relationship is or isn't "real" poly?

I am not going to get into debates over individual things about what is, and isn't poly - I used to try to do that and got frustrated when I couldn't. I am merely trying to point out that, in my experience, trying to do so is folly, and I am willing to provide some counter-examples. I actually like that we can't come up with some box-like definition of what is and isn't, or how it should or shouldn't work, or what the underlying paradigms are beyond it being loving, responsible non-monogamy. As an old debating "foe" of mine used to say, as soon as you draw a box around it, you exclude people who could otherwise feel included.

Maybe I missed something in a post (I am only on here a limited amount of time a day), but what is your motivation/need to lay things down this precisely?

So... what are we trying to do here? Are we trying to come up with recommendations for principles and paradigms of how most people find poly work well, or are we trying to come up with a set of criteria to define what poly should be? Because those are two very different discussions, and I am pretty confused. (Doesn't take much, I know! )
I notice that you did not answer my question, but choose to go out on a tangent that I explicitly said was not my intention. So I'm not going to repeat it.

You seem to be, in a very general way, against the very idea of finding out whether there are some foundational things we could agree upon. Could you accept that such a question may be meaningful to some, and that maybe somebody might be content with answers that you personally don't like? Oh well, probably not.

But just a small reminder, in some kind of faint hope:

In the last of these "criteria", "My poly is not your poly", your basic position is codified. I really don't understand how you could read that and still ask "or are we trying to come up with a set of criteria to define what poly should be?"

I also don't really understand how you get the impression such that you ask "Are we trying to come up with recommendations for principles and paradigms of how most people find poly work well". We're not.

Simple exercise: Negate each one of Ariakas' points. Still say this is poly?

Can keep love out of it - check
No ability to love multiple - check
No need for trust/honesty - check
No need for communication - check
No respect for my poly is not your poly - check
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
best practices, boundaries, foundations, guidelines, mono, mono/poly, monogamous, monogamy, principles, rules

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 04:33 AM.