Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 12-17-2009, 12:36 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
I'd still postulate however that experience is not 100% transferable...and it still involves skills that cannot be developed overnight. The whole prospect could just be too extreme or risky for someone to consider if they feel that they have too much to lose in the event that there's a hiccup along the way...and lets face it...there's very few paths in life that don't involve a few speed bumps along the way.
But we're not talking about water wings in the pool before you learn to swim or training wheels on a bike. We're not talking about learning simple math before tackling calculus.

We're talking about holding onto a concrete block because you're afraid of the ocean. The method of using the type of rules that Ceoli is talking about (hereafter referred to as "rules" in spite of the fact that there are other situations that other people also use the term "rules" for) is something that has to be unlearned in order to learn the skills for the non-prescripted-rules relationships. It's much more difficult to learn to swim if you dive out for the first time holding onto a concrete brick and you only want to let go of it one finger at a time.

So if it's someone's first time with relationships, learning the skills of communication and self-analysis are not only more profitable in the long run, but run counter to the rules method. These skills do indeed take time to learn, and trying to learn them while simultaneously practicing methods that directly contradict those skills you are attempting to learn is probably the most inefficient way to learn something new.

The skills that make poly relationships most effective and healthy are the exact same skills that make monogamous relationships most effective and healthy - communication (which covers talking, listening, and non-verbal communication), care and consideration, starting with partners who are already similar in goals/mindsets/worldviews, self-analysis, honesty with self and with others - these are all things that good monogamous relationships also have.

If you don't have these in your monogamous relationship before you open it up, making prescripted rules won't teach them to you and will often prevent you from learning them at all. If you do have them in your monogamous relationships, you don't NEED the prescripted rules because these skills cover everything that the prescripted rules are supposed to cover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
It may be that we're still talking about slightly different
Stop right there. Yes. Can we go back now to the types of rules Ceoli was referring to so we can stop arguing that these two different concepts aren't the same thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaginaryIllusion View Post
In the meantime, I would still submit that in certain contexts rules will still be a valid and valueable tool...particularly for those who have spent their lives working on one relationship and are suddenly having to play catchup on an entirely new way of being, as opposed to those who have spent that name time refining the skills required for non-monogamous relationships.
I came from a monogamous culture, like most of us did. I didn't even have the benefit of learning about the swingers, the kinksters, or even the hippies until I had already started dating. Where I grew up, there were 2 options and only two options: Life-long monogamy and Slut.

My parents met when my mother was in high school, got engaged at her senior prom, and remain married. Most of my extended family married young and stayed married. I knew about divorce and remarriage, but the end goal was always the same. There was a pattern: you met someone, you had a few dates that were usually diner and a movie, you were "dating", you got married, then you had sex and kids. You moved to the suburbs and bought a dog. That was it. All effort was then aimed at preserving the marriage at all costs, even if it meant you just didn't talk about things that could upset people (my mother refuses to hear of my dad's time in the air force before they started dating out of fear that she might learn he had other sexual partners because some military men did, especially those who spent time over seas). No variation on the theme whatsoever.

Then there were a few people who did not choose that path. But their alternate path was all the same too, with no variation. These were people who did not develop emotional relationships with anyone, they just had lots of sex. That's it, the two options I was presented with when I developed my own relationship habits. So my early relationship skills come from the very typical form of "monogamy" that our society likes to think everyone has, including all the rules that dictate other people's behaviour & poor communication - I had a lot of playing catchup to do to get to where I am now.

My point with this rambling story is that I read a lot about these people who called themselves "polyamorous" and I watched how everyone had screwed up before I came along. I tried not to make the same mistakes. I jumped right into prescriptionless polyamory without trying all these other mistakes first.

Of course I made some mistakes of my own and I had to build my communication skills and everything else, but I did not have to try the method that all the "experienced polys" opposed first.

A few relationships into this whole poly experiment, I did try the rules method, to make someone feel more secure about attempting something new and scary. We started out monogamous and "eased" into it with a bunch of rules. Predictably, the rules backfired exactly as all the experienced polys said it would.

Every relationship disaster I've had can be traced back to falling on those old bad habits, either on my part, on his part, or on both. Every relationship success I've had can credit its success directly to those skills required by prescriptionless relationships. Even the ones where we had to learn a skill as we went along were better than those we used the old bad habits for.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-17-2009, 12:47 AM
crisare's Avatar
crisare crisare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 172
Default

Joreth, I'm having a really hard time understanding where you're coming from. I went and read some of your blog and livejournal to maybe see if I could get a better understanding and I wound up even more confused.

In your section titled "How I Do Poly" you say specifically:

Quote:
I am not one for writing up specific rules to be followed, however, I have found that everyone has different expectations and different definitions of words. It is helpful to have certain things written out for clarity. A collaborative effort between myself and other people people with similar methods for conducting our relationships resulted in a document that outlines the kind of ethical treatment and reasonable expectations of a relationship, regardless of its type. It is drafted rather similiarly to a legal contract, but I do not print it out and have my partners all sign and notarize it. It is a useful tool for bringing up specific points in a discussion where expectations are often assumed and not always clearly verbalized. You can download a pdf version. I strongly recommend everyone print one out and use it to discuss individual issues and expectations within their own relationships. It is not necessary to sign it or even agree with each point, but use each point to discuss what your relationship should look like in terms of expecations. Here it is in full as an example of the way I prefer to handle my relationships, the expecations of treatment and the ethical consideration of my partners:

-----
Proposed Relationship Agreement and Statement of Expectations

This Agreement and Statement is understood to apply to the single relationship between two individuals. For the case where several individuals are involved in a multi-person group relationship, this agreement is to apply to each couple within that group. It is assumed that if each person in the group accepts this Agreement and Statement with each other person in the group individually, it will be universally accepted as proper treatment for the group as a whole and/or the group as a whole will have a separate Agreement and Statement that accommodates the larger group dynamic for any details that are not covered in this Agreement and Statement or that are specific to that group as a whole that does not apply to other relationships engaged in by each individual outside the group.

It is also understood that additional unique rules, limitations, exceptions, restrictions, contradictions, etc., may be applied to the two people in this relationship that are not covered by this Agreement and Statement and are not necessarily applicable to the other partner(s) with whom each individual may also be involved, so long as everyone affected accepts said amendments. This Agreement and Statement is not intended to offer complete coverage for all possible relationships between all possible people or all possible scenarios and situations. Individuals have unique and individual needs and therefore may require additional structure to their individual relationships that may not be required with all of their relationships. This document is intended to be an overall Agreement and Statement pertaining to the ethical and respectful treatment of both people in this relationship and to clarify the nature of this relationship as network-based and intentionally polyamorous with inclusive intentions.

[snipped the rest of the contract here: http://www.theinnbetween.net/polyme.html#agreement]
Given the extreme, in-depth detail which your contract goes into, I am really struggling to understand your position when you say that people should be reasonable and that as adults we're all capable of understanding what's acceptable and what's not (using your "I generally wouldn't invite you into my home if I thought you were going to be a destructive jerk" mindset. ). I guess I'm not sure which point you're arguing (debating) for or against here.

I'm sorry ... I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just quite lost at what you're getting at, given the extensive "contract" and information you have on your blog.

Last edited by crisare; 12-17-2009 at 12:50 AM. Reason: to fix link
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-17-2009, 01:12 AM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I'm learning more and more that partner selection is a real skill that can be learned. It's not about controlling emotions, but about recognizing how the love you feel for someone can fit into your life.
Oh, boy, that's a hard-learned lesson. I learned from my first marriage to look for specific traits necessary for long-term compatibility. I learned from my second marriage to look for traits to avoid to maintain that long-term compatibility. This marriage has lasted longer than the first two and has been much easier to maintain and more fulfilling.

I also know women whom I love dearly and know that we aren't compatible for long-term romantic relationships. Those are the loves I cannot obey, for the sake of everybody involved.
__________________
When speaking of various forms of non-monogamy...it ain't poly if you're just fucking around.

While polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all distinctly different approaches to non-monogamy, they are not mutually exlusive. Folks can, and some do, engage in more than one of them at a time--and it's all good.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-17-2009, 02:22 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

Cisare:

The "contract" was not intended to be an actual contract to be signed and used among all partners, written by me and imposed on other relationships that I am not a part of. It was meant to be a conversation starter, to address those points that many people assume everyone has the same idea about. It was intended to foster communication. I even said that right in the prologue. The pragmatic language of a contract just happens to suit my writing style and more easily breaks topics into categories for me that can be addressed one at a time, that's all.

It might help to rename this "contract" to "An Outline Of One Of My Relationships At One Point In Time". This agreement was never signed and it was never intended to be adhered to indefinitely. It was meant to clarify what kind of relationship I wanted with a particular person who specifically requested that I write it all down in a point by point manner.

It is also, as mentioned again in the prologue, a set of boundaries between two people in a relationship, not a set of rules made by an existing relationship to be imposed on an outside relationship.

It was intended to determine if I and my prospective partner viewed relationships in the same way, not to insist that he do things this way with other people even if he didn't want to.

Within the contract itself, it very specifically spells out that we are not going to police each other's actions, we will not make rules for each other's other relationships, and we have the ability to make our own decisions about things.

It was also meant for a very specific set of circumstances.

At the time, I was dating someone who started dating someone else and she was really not on board with the whole poly thing. He wanted to "ease her into it" and consequently let her do things like refuse to attend the same party where I might attend and agree to act as the go-between instead of insisting we talk directly (which I wanted, but she didn't).

When he and I started dating, I explained that I preferred an inclusive network, and I defined "inclusive network" as an open relationship where everyone could make their own decisions about adding or subtracting new partners with no veto rules, but where everyone very strongly considered the feelings of existing partners before making those decisions and where the metamours all had a preference for developing independent friendships with each other. That's the summary, but in reality, the conversation took place over weeks, revisiting the topic and expanding on individual points.

He agreed that he wanted the same thing. This is part of the whole communication and choosing good partners thing. I say I want my life to look like this, he says "great! me too!", so we have a relationship that looks like this.

Then he started dating this new girl who was very much against this. She did not want to attend the same parties as me, she did not speak to me beyond polite greetings when she was forced to attend (and it was very nearly "force" - many times she only attended under duress, which he put her through only because he hated admitting that I was right and she wasn't into a poly relationship), and she refused to let me have her email address or phone number.

Since I had expressed at the beginning the type of poly relationship I wanted, and he didn't just agree to my rules but said he also wanted the same thing and came to that conclusion before ever meeting me and would have that type of relationship even if he wasn't dating me, I reminded him of what we had talked about, and he seemed surprised.

After many discussions where it seemed as though he had no recollection of our pre-dating discussions of what we each wanted, and it also seemed as though he spontaneously changed the definition of terms we used earlier, he asked me to write out a set of "rules" that he could follow.

I resisted because he very clearly did not understand the meaning behind any such "rule" that I might come up with, and if he didn't understand *why* a rule was in place, it was inevitable that he would do something in the future that wasn't strictly against the "rules" but had the same effect that the rule was intending to circumvent. Also, there are so many exceptions and variations and so many situations that I might not even think of, that trying to anticipate every single possibility and make a rule around it is a futile endeavor.

But he insisted that I write it all down and he insisted that I address the objective actions. So I did.

This contract was an attempt to clarify all those terms and things that he seemed to understand prior to dating but didn't seem to understand once he started dating the new girl. The "contract" was written based on conversations with him explaining the type of relationship I wanted in general and several other conversations with people who were not part of the relationship network who chimed in to give assistance by pointing out possible assumptions that could be made about terms from people with different viewpoints.

The "rules" in the "contract", as I said, are between two existing members of a relationship, which Ceoli and I, and others, have both said are not the same thing. No one here is advocating a complete lack of boundaries and expectations in a relationship - at the very least, the two people in a relationship have to agree on what their relationship actually looks like.

continued on next post
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-17-2009, 02:23 AM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

continued from previous post

But, for instance, the clause on breaking dates. That was put in there because he didn't actually realize that breaking a date was hurtful to the person you broke a date with. So that had to be spelled out, and all the possible exceptions for when breaking a date is acceptable had to also be spelled out. But, as I feared at the time and as I have been saying here, making a rule preventing breaking dates doesn't fix the underlying issue that his version of "respectful" and my version of "respectful" were not the same thing and making the rule didn't make him more respectful, it just stopped him from making definite plans in the first place so he wouldn't ever break one again.

One of his other partners was long-distance, so it had to be explained to him why, when he and I made a date to just hang out and watch movies, and she calls up to say she finally got her vacation dates approved and she'll be visiting over that time period, that was OK to reschedule but his other local girlfriend wanting to see him on the same night that *I* had to go through a lot of trouble to get off from work & was planning a Special Evening was not (really, I'm OK passing up hanging out when your LD gf comes to town, but cancelling my Valentine's Day plans to be with your other local gf, especially when I would have welcomed her to join us anyway, are so totally not the same thing).

As I keep saying, if he doesn't understand or agree with what the rule is intending to do, it won't stop him, and if he does understand what the rule is intending to do, he doesn't need a rule to make him. But it is helpful to spell out what it is that I mean when I say "when you do it for this reason, it's hurtful, but when you do it for that reason, it's not". That's communication. I just happened to not post the dialog, I posted the end result of the dialog in the form of the "contract" because I think in bullet points and Roman Numerals.

She also had issues with seeing me be affectionate with him on those rare social occasions he insisted that she attend. So even though I had explained my position on PDA before, I had to spell out, again, that whatever level of PDA was acceptable if she wasn't in the room should still be acceptable when she is in the room. Note that this says nothing about how much PDA he is or isn't allowed to have *with her*. If they want a lesser amount of PDA just because I'm around, they can do that. But *I* shouldn't have to give up my otherwise-acceptable amount of PDA just because someone else wants me to. That's one of the rules that Ceoli is talking about.

There is only one small section that pertains to relationships outside of the couple who is, theoretically, agreeing to this "contract", and mostly that covers the things that really *are* different between poly and non-poly relationships, like maintaining contact between the metamours. Note, however, that it STILL doesn't dictate what those relationships should look like, but rather it spells out the importance of communication among all involved. The metamours can be whatever level and type of friendship (or no friendship at all) that it naturally wants to be, but the ability to communicate when there are problems is important. It doesn't prescript what my partner's other relationships should look like, it illustrates that *I* am in a relationship with her too - the metamour relationship, and all relationships require communication to be healthy. It doesn't make any other prescriptions on what my relationship with this yet-to-be-named metamour should look like, either. We can be best friends, we can be acquaintances, we can even not like each other, our relationship can look like whatever our relationship will want to look like depending upon who she is ... we just have to be able to communicate.

The new girlfriend refused to communicate directly with me or any of his other partners, so all information was passed through him, which got garbled or even cut out - not because he was maliciously manipulating things, but because that's how passing verbal information works. Our lack of direct communication was making things worse and he didn't understand that and she, apparently, didn't care.

STD testing is another section that could fall under the "exception" category for whether rules are acceptable, except that, again, this "contract" is between the two people in an existing relationship, not imposed on a newcomer. It allows for the possibility of an outside relationship to not fit this model, and outlines how this relationship should change to accommodate that.

STD rules that pertain to an outside relationship are more understandable, but, again, the point is that if you have good communication with your existing partner, it is not necessary to make a rule dictating his behaviour since he would already know and agree with whatever it is the rules would state.

In the "contract", there are some tips on how to communicate more effectively, such as discussing a problem when it's still small and fixable.

In several places, there are allowances for the outside, new relationship to look differently than the relationship between the two people for whom the contract was meant. It does not expect for the outside relationship to conform, it explains how this relationship will probably change to accommodate an outside relationship that doesn't conform to this model.

It addresses topics that many people make assumptions about or take for granted. It was posted, not as a recommendation that anyone else follow the same pattern or that contracts in general were a good idea (as was explicitly stated), but to illustrate the types of talking points that are often assumed so that no one else has to go through the experience that I did, where I thought we were both on the same page about the type of relationship we wanted but it turned out he had no idea what I meant when I said what I wanted out of a relationship with him.

If you read through each point, you should see that they address the boundaries for an existing relationship between two people. They do not spell out what an outside relationship will look like, especially without that hypothetical new person's input. This is not about my partner's relationship with his other girlfriend, this is about my relationship with my partner.

Last edited by Joreth; 12-17-2009 at 02:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-17-2009, 06:31 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli
I'm learning more and more that partner selection is a real skill that can be learned. It's not about controlling emotions, but about recognizing how the love you feel for someone can fit into your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventhcrow
I also know women whom I love dearly and know that we aren't compatible for long-term romantic relationships. Those are the loves I cannot obey, for the sake of everybody involved.
(I don't know how to that quote within a quote thing... sorry)

I totally understand this about "skill", which is why I am okay in my polyfi relationship. I love many people but would not indulge (create poly relationships) in anything but what I have as I really can't see how I would get anything better than what I have. I am really okay, at this point in my life, having had many long term relationships and even more lovers/partners, with being settled with what I have and REALLY getting into the depths of love we can accomplish now that I know it fits in my life. In this way anyone else that has the possible potential to be with me intimately is a love I cannot and will not obey for the sake of everyone involved.

Interesting the word "obey"
__________________
My blog

Last edited by NeonKaos; 12-17-2009 at 01:37 PM. Reason: Add quote formatting
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-29-2009, 02:33 AM
StitchwitchD StitchwitchD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
"Look, I like you and all, but my wife has decided that my relationship with you threatens my marriage just because you're another person, so before you and I met, she and I agreed that I wouldn't ever fall in love with you in order to make sure that she always comes first regardless of how either you or I feel in the matter, and to effect that, my time with you is limited to 4 hours every other Tuesday. What? You work late on Tuesdays? Well, yeah, I have other days free, but it doesn't matter, my wife and I decided on Tuesdays, so take it or leave it."
Good way of describing it!

Although with the situation I was in, they'd just discussed having an open marriage, and then practiced that by having casual/FWB relationships with people who either had primary partners or lived far away, or just weren't interested in more of a relationship than FWB. They hadn't sat down and decided how to avoid having anyone fall in love with anyone, they just did what they wanted with who they wanted and it worked fine for everyone, the rules were very basic: honesty, safe sex, and he'd set a rule for himself to "visit the marriage bed before going elsewhere".

Then I became single, living 6 blocks away, and we talked a little about what their rules were, and I was upfront about my tendency to get emotionally attached, but I figured we were already good friends, and she seemed fine with that- so we figured we were good to go and got some. Within a few weeks, I was at their house more than at home, and then she gradually started feeling a bit "ooky" about it, and started setting more boundaries, going from "No crawling into bed with him in our bedroom with the door open when the kids are home" to "No sitting on my side of the bed" to "No sitting on the bed fully dressed having any contact with any part of his body if I'm not also sitting on the bed and thus you are just scrunching in from lack of room".

We're still good friends, but the experience taught me that I need to know what the possibilities are before getting emotionally involved, and I can't deal with a bonsai relationship. I need to know it can grow into whatever it has the potential to be.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-29-2009, 05:14 PM
Joreth's Avatar
Joreth Joreth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 62
Default

And that would be the difference between prescripting and descripting a relationship - Describing the relationship AS-IS is saying "at this moment in time, we are a casual, FWB with limited emotional entanglement.

Prescripting is saying "from this point forward, the relationship will be a casual, FWB with limited emotional entanglement".

The problem on my end is not with the structure - FWB, casual, polyfi, whatever are all totally fine from my perspective if everyone in the relationship is getting what they want from the relationship. The problem is with making rules to dictate someone else's behaviour for the purpose of preventing the person making the rules from facing the underlying insecurity that makes him or her feel "ooky".

Organizing one's life to prevent ever feeling uncomfortable, rather than facing the fear, does not make that fear go away. It's always there and untreated, and fears like it when you don't examine them very closely. It gives them more power. They then spring up in all sorts of unanticipated ways and often make the people feeling them (and those around them) feel as though the person is inconsistent or not in control of his own life and no one, including the person in question, can anticipate what might set him off.

And that's the situation Ceoli was talking about - feeling like she has no control or say in her relationship because it would be completely at the mercy of someone else who didn't even understand the problem and therefore can't anticipate things. So rules are piled upon rules, and things can change at any moment, and all of it is beyond the incoming partner's control.

But facing the fear, while difficult and uncomfortable, gives one the option of conquering the fear, so that all those rules become unnecessary because those actions no longer trigger the fear in the first place, since the fear is now gone.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-29-2009, 06:05 PM
Ravenesque Ravenesque is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joreth View Post
The problem is with making rules to dictate someone else's behaviour for the purpose of preventing the person making the rules from facing the underlying insecurity that makes him or her feel "ooky".

Organizing one's life to prevent ever feeling uncomfortable, rather than facing the fear, does not make that fear go away. It's always there and untreated, and fears like it when you don't examine them very closely. It gives them more power. They then spring up in all sorts of unanticipated ways and often make the people feeling them (and those around them) feel as though the person is inconsistent or not in control of his own life and no one, including the person in question, can anticipate what might set him off.
I am glad this is being discussed here. I am in agreement with Ceoli and Joreth.

In other discussions I have participated in, it has been said that without prescriptions and concepts like veto power within a relationship, participants within the overall poly relationship are allowed to run all over their partners and do whatever they like.

This seems to describe a complete lack of accountability, communication and faith that a love will work to have a thriving relationship on all sides. From my view having these prescriptions simply highlights an unbalanced relationship generally riddled with unresolved insecurity.

I would not run all over my love because I care for him. I want him to be happy. I love him. I also would not let a new love feel stifled or as though our relationship was contingent on the approval of my other love. Nor that our new relationship was shaped based on the rules set by my other love.

This thread is 8 pages long and I will add more after I go through a few more pages.

~Raven~
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-29-2009, 10:02 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,467
Default

I think there really are some valid lessons, here - ones that we have learned over time to get to the point where we are today in how we handle the "relationship negotiation".

First up - I think I self-identify pretty much as practicising "polyfidelity" - or certainly at that end of the poly spectrum. I don't tend to go for short-term relationships as a goal - my hope is that there will be a more stable multi-person relationship in place.

I also believe that everyone has their own personal boundaries, and the more conscious of them they are, the better.

So, once it becomes obvious to all involved that some sort of relationship is potentially there, we have a session of talking about our respective boundaries, finding out whether there are any clashes or conflicts there between them, and putting the guidelines in place so that everybody can be certain of how boundaries will be respected in that relationship. It's as much to ensure that people have a sense of knowing that their boundaries have been heard, understood and respected. That is the goal of that discussion, anyway.

The current relationship setup has been in place for over a year and a half, now, and was the first one where we consciously did this process. I think that the individuals involved had the emotional maturity to do it, and were - and are - compatible enough (i.e. our boundaries didn't clash in any significant ways) that we have been able to make this work as well as we have.

Just to emphasize that there were no "rules" going in that were presented as a fait accompli to the person entering the relationship. But there are now mutually agreed-upon rules that are in place for this relationship. Should we need to repeat the process with someone else, I am certain that we shall go back to the boundaries discussion and form new rules with whomsoever comes into our lives.

Oh and on a periodic basis we have a sit-down and review what is in place to see if anything needs to be changed. So far there have only needed to be small tweaks made. But if anything major comes up, each is encouraged to speak up and we work together to resolve it. While we try our best to know ourselves, sometimes unexpected things come up that nobody could have foreseen.

I am certainly not going to pretend that this is the only way to do it, or even that it would work for anyone else, but it's how we have found it to be best for us.
__________________

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

Tags
boundaries, communication, contracts, prescriptions, primary, restrictions, rules, secondary, third partner, thirds, veto, veto power

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 01:30 AM.