What is a heirarchy, really?

LR-
It should be noted-Franklin didn't write that post. It was a guest post.
true. He participated in the thread. Lots going on there that is not really anything to do with here. So I'm glad we are moving on. Its good to be reminded of the negative side of heirarchies. Still, there is a useful side too that is a reality for many.
 
You are so awesome with concrete-completely off topic examples and I love that!
When I say off-topic-it's a compliment.
I LOVE how you come up with these "not poly" examples for why there are some things that work best in certain ways. :) Its refreshing.

Thanks!

It comes from trying to teach advanced physics concepts to a railroader husband :p He's a really smart guy, but he doesn't give himself credit because he's not book smart. I get straight A's, but I get lost in a city of 260,000 on a regular basis. It's sad.
 
Tonberry-I feel the same. That part was what I appreciated, I also understand some people don't like the word being associated with negative definitions at all-but it already has negative connotations to many. I doubt any argument will alter that negative connotation any time soon. Much like "fag" or "dyke". Some people use them non-negatively, but they aren't altering the general understanding that those terms are derogatory.

RP-I know, just know some writers get really t'd off over credit for their writing being given to others. As.... Well known as Franklin is, it would be easy for that to happen. Whether the opinion is positive or negative regarding the work & regardless of his agreeing or disagreeing with the words-its not his writing.
 
Shrodinger-I understand. :) I am the straight A student, Maca is construction. But he can visualize things from all directions, I SO cannot. ;)
 
Here you go. The definition actually was: A poly hierarchy exists when at least one person holds more power over a partner's other relationships than is held by the people within those relationships.

Often when I see this, it's referring to one member of an established couple dictating what the other relationship (that they are not part of) is going to look like or function as. This is inappropriate.

My question is, does the same standard apply when one member of an established couple falls in love, decides to be polyamorous with new partner, thereby mandating a conversion from monogamous relationship to a polyamorous framework (or no relationship at all)?
 
My question is, does the same standard apply when one member of an established couple falls in love, decides to be polyamorous with new partner, thereby mandating a conversion from monogamous relationship to a polyamorous framework (or no relationship at all)?

Well, everyone always has the right to leave a relationship that can no longer meet their needs. That those needs have changed such that meeting them requires a shift in the relationship framework does not make the needs are any less valid.

But there are respectful ways to go about that, and disrespectful ways. "Get ok with it or I'm walking" is not respectful, and therefore inappropriate. But "I'm sorry that my needs have changed and that it requires some huge changes in our relationship in order for it to meet my new needs" is.

Within that "mandate," you can choose to be supportive and accommodating of your partner's own needs, or you can choose to tell them to suck it up cupcake. Again, appropriate and inappropriate.
 
Two things.

First, I think in any relationships, mono, poly, open, you need to discuss what definitions mean to you. I've had this discussion with friends before. All these things people just assume about relationships and they assume everyone has the same assumptions! What is cheating, when is it serious all of that. When those assumptions YOU have are based on relationships you have seen, been exposed to, or part of. Well how could someone else have the exact same assumptions if they haven't had the exact same experiences and exposures?

Secondly, I really get annoyed, bit pet peeve, when someone else defines something for me. I've had a horrible experience in the past, including abusive behavior thrown at me and others, all because I dared to say that the way that something was defined wasn't how I or my partner's defined it. It became a mess because as was stated to us Franklin defined it this way and since he's such a poly heavy weight, it was deemed that it was THE definition. Sorry, I don't buy that. I don't buy that just because you have a 'following' of sorts that means your definitions and decisions are THE right ones. I don't care who you are. It became an epic fight that should have ended when I simply stated, "Oh well I can see why you were upset over it, however that's not how we define that. We define it this way." Instead it became a "You are wrong! What we define it as is what it is!"

Flexibility people. Know that just because you have had a bad experience with XYZ doesn't mean other people that use the term XYZ are even doing the same things!
 
Often when I see this, it's referring to one member of an established couple dictating what the other relationship (that they are not part of) is going to look like or function as. This is inappropriate.

My question is, does the same standard apply when one member of an established couple falls in love, decides to be polyamorous with new partner, thereby mandating a conversion from monogamous relationship to a polyamorous framework (or no relationship at all)?

While I don't think people should just start another relationship without checking their existing partners are okay with it (in my opinion, doing something you know your partner isn't okay with is cheating, even if you don't hide it from them), I think there is a big difference in that the former is someone saying "you shall (not) do this in your other relationship" and the latter is someone saying "I shall (not) do this in my other relationship".

In the latter scenario, the person trying to control the other is the monogamous person. At no point is the poly person from your example trying to pressure their partner into starting a relationship they do not want, or forbidding them to start one they want.

That our partners' lives affect us is a fact. And in any decision that might affect a partner, they should be consulted. It's true of changing jobs, moving or getting into another relationship. But in the end the decision should always be made by the person who has the opportunity for a new job, a new location or a new relationship. They should take their partners' feelings and opinions into account, certainly, but the decision remains theirs.

Similarly, someone's decision not to have children will affect a monogamous partner who wants children, as their monogamy doesn't allow them to have their children with another partner. However, it remains the childfree person's decision whether they want children or not, and they are not "holds more power over a partner's other relationships than is held by the people within those relationships", where the relationship here would be that of parent to (currently nonexistent) child.
Because the person who wants children can still make their own decision as well. Do they want children more than they want the relationship with their childfree partner? Or do they want the relationship more than they want children?
Similarly, the childfree partner presumably made their decision with the understanding that they might lose someone they love, and that they can't force their partner to stay, however it's important to them that someone else doesn't make the "having children" decision for them.

To put it in a polyamory context, or in a mono-poly context, I do not want biological children, but I am absolutely fine with any of my partners having them. I don't control their desire to have children, nor do I wish to. If they have children it will affect me, and I am aware of it and fine with it (otherwise, I would have the possibility to decide to leave a relationship that wouldn't work for me - this is always an option) but I will retain my own autonomous control over my own body.
Similarly, if I wanted to stop having sex with my partners, I wouldn't forbid them from having sex with others. I would retain control over my own body and make my own decision not to have sex, but that wouldn't be a decision over their body and their ability to have sex, as they would still have that option with others.
That was the case with my ex, during the times I lost trust in him and there wasn't much intimacy, but we were already open so although he never ended up having sex with others because he wasn't interested, I refuse to take responsibility of his lack of sex because I did not forbid it or try to stop it, and it's a decision he made himself not to pursue it with others.

I hope I'm being clear here about where the line is. It can be tricky, because of course what other people do will affect you, and you want basic respect and courtesy in being informed of it and being given a chance to give your opinion, but there is a difference between things that affect you but are someone else's personal decision to make, and things that you should retain control over because they are your personal decisions to make.
 
I see what you are saying in reply to Ice however, I too have seen where the poly person makes decisions for the mono person. Not just in teh example of, "I've fallen in love with someone else and figured out it's okay for me to love more than one person so we are a poly marriage now, you can accept or walk." Which is still totally inappropriate.

There have been examples right here on this site of the poly person saying that they and their new partner have decided together that they are SOUL MATES and so the mono spouse is just the 'comfy' relationship. Where the poly person and their new love have decided that they can be sexual but they want to be sexually monogamous so the married or established mono partner is suddenly told no sex for you with your partner! There are many more inappropriate examples when you put D/s into it and I have seen myself on here where the poly person has met a mono person, 'converted' them, and then the mono (their new playmate/partner) has told their established partner that things have changed. No discussion, no lead in, just that because their new poly partner says this is the way it is, they are doing it that way.

I'm not vilifying D/s, or poly, but I also see more often than not the will to vilify monos and 'mono thinking' and labeling them 'mononormative' like it's a bad thing. Yet when a poly makes a mistake or is inappropriate the automatic distancing done with comments like, "Oh well they are bad polys!" or "That's not the right way to do poly so we aren't talking about that!"

If you can put all mono in a box and whether someone is doing it wrong, right, or is scared out of their mind and has no idea what to do, then you can do the same for poly. So while it's wrong for a mono partner to decide what is going to happen in a relationship not their own, it's wrong for a poly too. No disclaimers, no buts, and no distancing yourself because it makes you feel bad. I feel bad every day for stupid shit women pull, I feel bad that it gives women a bad name. I feel bad every day for stupid shit poly people pull, feeling it gives poly people a bad name. I don't try and distance myself I simply explain to myself and to others that EVERYONE does things wrong at one time or another. Some learn from it, others not so much. I don't care if they are men, women, mono, or poly. If it's inappropriate in a relationship, it is inappropriate. I'm not going to make excuses for those that fit my 'label' just so I can put all the inappropriate, or the vast majority, on someone else's 'label'.
 
Yes, I don't think it's about being mono or poly, but about being considerate. I made sure to use some examples that had nothing to do with polyamory in order to illustrate that. For instance, where you live is your own decision in the end. However, informing a partner you're moving away in two days, without involving them in the decision at all, isn't very considerate, especially if they live with you. It will affect them so they should be made part of the decision.
Of course if they refuse to talk until you absolutely have to make the decision on your own, it's another story >.>

Anyways, I think some people have suffered from having to live mono for years, and they feel it's only fair that they get to decide now since their partner did for so long and they were miserable. The issue here is one from another thread: if all this time you never told your partner you were miserable, then you can't hold them responsible for it.

It can be hard to see both (or all) sides of an issue, but yes, everyone needs to. Now, in your examples, the only one I disagree with is the sex one, as I don't see how someone could force themselves to have sex with someone they don't want to, or be called inconsiderate. Nobody ever owes anyone else sex.
This being said, if the person says "So and so has decided I shouldn't have sex with you, and although I would like to, well I've got to honor their decision" then yes, it's the definition we've mentioned above. It doesn't really matter whether so and so is an older or recent partner, or whether so and so is mono or poly.

If a decision involves you, you should be involved in making it.
If a decision doesn't directly involve you but affects you, you should be able to give your opinion and input before the decision is eventually made (by those actually involved).
If a decision doesn't involve you, you shouldn't be the one making it, although you might be given the opportunity to present your opinion.

How long you've been together or how mono you are isn't relevant. It's about treating others with respect, and working together when it gets tough rather than just telling someone to go away or shut up because they're making the situation less convenient.
 
Let's Make Out

They do NOT deserve to be judged and alienated out of the community before they arrive by being labeled as pariahs with this kind of self-sucking lollipop "definition" by a bunch of people who've never actually walked the same path, and have no business judging them for it.

Good lord, Yes. A warning bell start going off when I hear people use terms like "poly-normativity" and "hierarchy". Everyone is finding their own path, and has the right to make mistakes, be human, find the path that works best for them, and work towards doing 'poly' with as much integrity, honesty and respect as possible. I have watched horrific behaviour coming from "single-ish" people, and it's downplayed in comparison to those operating within a couple or using any kind of model involving hierarchy. This strikes me as a double standard that makes zero sense to me - it's okay to make mistakes if you're on your own, but in a couple "doing hierarchy" all of sudden you're classified in a different way.
 
Hierarchy does suggest that there are going to be some roles which are higher or lower in comparison to each other; unless I missed a meeting, that's what a hierarchy is. However, it doesn't make a statement about the decency, kindness, or mutual respect of the people involved in it. It's not a value judgment on how or why people might organize into a hierarchical arrangement. A hierarchy can come to be due to any number of measurements.

When I think of a relationship hierarchy I instantly think of some people being important and others being less important - while that makes me want to throw up in my mouth, "less than" isn't necessarily a requirement for someone lower on the hierarchy diagram. While I expect this is more true than people would feel comfortable admitting, I recognize that it isn't *necessarily* a "less than"/"greater than" setup with all hierarchical arrangements.

Everyone is finding their own path, and has the right to make mistakes, be human, find the path that works best for them, and work towards doing 'poly' with as much integrity, honesty and respect as possible.

I don't have anything to add to this quote but I just wanted to say that I love the descriptions that came to your mind when describing the circumstances of a healthy relationship. That's a beautiful thing.
 
unless I missed a meeting, that's what a hierarchy is.

You did miss a meeting, actually. The "we make up the rules for everyone" club meets every second week, at the Starbucks on 5th & 2nd. Fortunately, they have no power and we just ignore their desperate pleas. :rolleyes:

When I think of a relationship hierarchy I instantly think of some people being important and others being less important - while that makes me want to throw up in my mouth, "less than" isn't necessarily a requirement for someone lower on the hierarchy diagram. While I expect this is more true than people would feel comfortable admitting, I recognize that it isn't *necessarily* a "less than"/"greater than" setup with all hierarchical arrangements.

Important to whom? And why does the whom's opinion carry more absolute weight than the others'?

Everybody is more important to one person than they are to someone else. It might be that you're more important to you mom than you are to your aunt, or that you're more important to one partner than you are to another... But that's not hierarchy, it's just life.

There are some hierarchies that people have no control over. I cannot just up and choose to be in charge of the country. But I can choose whether or not to be involved in a hierarchical relationship. Having made the choice to do so, I may be giving up some autonomy within that relationship, but I always maintain my overall autonomy because I continually have the choice whether to continue being in that relationship.
 
Everybody is more important to one person than they are to someone else. It might be that you're more important to you mom than you are to your aunt, or that you're more important to one partner than you are to another... But that's not hierarchy, it's just life.

That's a fair clarification SC.

The distinction I would make is when a hierarchy would seem to exist simply because of competing needs which are being met by the people with relevant tendencies/skills and when one exists because it is designed that way.

What you described is simply life, I agree. It is the way people interact with each other without necessarily deciding to do so. IV depends on CV for things that she wouldn't generally come to me for. It's not because she loves him more or he has some kind of status that I lack, but simply because he freely offers some advantages that I don't. This situation exists in the reverse order as well.

The hierarchy I was speaking of is the one that exists because it is designed that way. Most workplaces have a hierarchy, not because of the abilities of the people but because that's just the way that it is. If we are lucky the people in positions of authority over a certain set of tasks actually have some expertise in the field and are competent leaders. I work for a troupe of moderately well trained monkeys who I answer to because that's what it says on the organization chart, not because they actually have something to offer (other than authority).

I equate relationships with primary and secondary type titles to this kind of of stifling system. This is more pronounced when the titles given to partners come with a list of socially imposed assumptions; Husband and Wife are at the front of this list. No matter how enlightened a poly group may try to be, they are swimming against the current if they use these titles and expect to not live within what I would call a hierarchy. Titles are shorthand for descriptions of authority and responsibility, that's why they are convenient. I can say I'm someone's manager and pretty much stop there - they get what the dynamic is. With husband or wife I would argue that it is similarly stifling.
 
I equate relationships with primary and secondary type titles to this kind of of stifling system. This is more pronounced when the titles given to partners come with a list of socially imposed assumptions; Husband and Wife are at the front of this list. No matter how enlightened a poly group may try to be, they are swimming against the current if they use these titles and expect to not live within what I would call a hierarchy. Titles are shorthand for descriptions of authority and responsibility, that's why they are convenient. I can say I'm someone's manager and pretty much stop there - they get what the dynamic is. With husband or wife I would argue that it is similarly stifling.

And this is where it comes in. No matter how open minded anyone tries to be, there is inherent prejudice. On poly groups there is a lot towards married couples. What I find exhausting, personally, is it comes from those NOT in a similar situation. To me, it's like me making assumptions about how 'stifling' and incorrect all the single people are. Watch the reversal. Have poly configurations that include marriage post something about the assumptions of single poly folk that live unattached. They would get lambasted.

So while I personally figure what works for you works for you, I don't get the same attitudes back. For the record you can argue about things being stifling but argue that you imagine it is stifling TO YOU. Let's stop making assumptions on other people's relationship configurations just because they wouldn't work for you huh?
 
So while I personally figure what works for you works for you, I don't get the same attitudes back. For the record you can argue about things being stifling but argue that you imagine it is stifling TO YOU. Let's stop making assumptions on other people's relationship configurations just because they wouldn't work for you huh?

So you would make the point that titles do not come with assumptions of responsibility or authority? Do you think that there are no responsibilities or authority associated with the titles Husband and Wife? Do you claim that those titles are incapable of stifling someone from functioning in a way that doesn't agree with those assumptions?

By all means, make your case. I'm curious to hear your argument.

You sound like you think I'm attacking your way of life and that you have wounds associated with this topic. I am having a very civil conversation about hierarchy, and will continue to do so until I decide I won't anymore. I encourage you to join in the conversation (constructively).
 
In my opinion the problem is when people within the situation are unhappy. Not necessarily all of them but at least one of them. If everyone is happy, I see no reason to comment on how they decide to lead their life and relationships.

When people are unhappy, and they say the rules make them unhappy, though, it's good to think of ways to change that. Yes, leaving is always an option, but I would hope that it would be a last resort after everyone in the relationship at least gives it a fair try to make things better.
 
If everyone is happy, I see no reason to comment on how they decide to lead their life and relationships

I think we can state that some ways of living demonstrably foster the well-being of everyone involved, at least when compared to others of a less than desirable nature. Living on a farm in an area safe from most wars or dangerous animals would probably foster greater well-being than living in... say... a POW camp. Someone would surely play devils advocate and say that isn't true, we'd haggle back and forth about it and likely come to discover that living on a safe farm is, in fact, more conducive to happiness and health than being tortured daily in a POW camp, at least in a number of ways.

(Note: I used extreme examples to illustrate the discussion of comparing lifestyles, not as a value statement of monogamy or polyamory)

As reasonable people we can have similar discussions about living arrangements and determine the objective qualities of these different arrangements. Monogamy and polyamory are two such states in which we can attempt to come to objective understandings of how these two arrangements can work. We don't necessarily need to make judgment calls about them, but if discussed rationally and thoroughly enough surely there can be some aspects which we deem more likely to promote well-being than others.

For this reason I say there does not need to be unhappiness in a relationship in order to discuss it. Happiness is a difficult state to quantify so we break it down into discussing respect, independence, gratitude, jealousy, coercion, etc. As we trudge through these conversations we might discover objective truths which we were previously unaware of.
 
Basic needs for food, shelter and so on, we can draw some generalizations on. We can say "humans being need to eat" or "it's best to have a roof over your head" and safely assume that most people feel the same way.
Happiness however, especially happiness in a relationship, that's another story altogether. I'm sorry but sometimes, the generalizations some people draw are like saying fish should live up trees because birds can fly.

Yes, respect is important. But people will have different definitions of it. Some people will be completely shocked at the lack of respect that must be involved in a poly relationship for instance. Or a BDSM one. Because it would be a lack of respect towards them to treat them like that, because of their personal preferences.

So there definitely isn't a mold that everyone fits in nicely. Because I can't be everyone and know how everyone feels by myself, what I can do is trust that if people are happy, they're in the situation that works best for them. When you start deciding for people that they can't really be happy, they must be wrong, and you have to save them from themselves, you are just taking away their right to make their own decisions and have control over their own lives.
You might not understand why or how people can be happy in some situations, but if they are, they are, and there is no reason to change everything to fit your own personal criteria. Rather than assume that they're not really happy because you think they're not treated with respect, you might go the other way, see that they're happy, and conclude that therefore, they are treated with respect, even if their personal situation would not work for you.
 
You might not understand why or how people can be happy in some situations, but if they are, they are, and there is no reason to change everything to fit your own personal criteria

We could disagree on some of the finer points of what you've said but honestly it doesn't change much. The fact still remains that having reasonable discourse between people with an interest to learn and an open mind can only be a positive thing. We can all learn from each other but that is only if we are not afraid to have conversations which some people would try to convince us are not our business.
 
Back
Top