I left poly for a little over a year after a breakup with my last partner because things just felt off with poly in general as we were doing it. I’d gotten help here pinpointing some, but it took being on my own in the mono world to figure out what the issues were— and the biggest one was consent. I have a theory I’d like to share/get input on.
IMHO, a misunderstanding of multi-person consent means the power dynamic has been skewed in poly culture for a long time, and the imbalance has often resulted in emotional abuse by denying agency without consent. I believe it is because we still see through a mono lens.
In general terms, consent to *do an act* is asked by the one wanting the act to the one wanting to have it done to.
There is also consent involved in restraint. To *refrain* is asked by the one wanting refraining to the ones being asked to refrain. If they agree, they have consented to refrain. If they don’t, they have nots
In monogamous marriage vows, or even early on as dating partners,
each consent to refrain. If that consent is withdrawn, it needs to be talked about for trust to be present. However, the right to not refrain is always with the refrainer. If it ultimately is not a good thing to refrain, they are free to break it off - to be ethical, after asking the refrain requester how they would best like it handled (can you tolerate it and under what circumstances, or if I choose not to refrain, should I move out, divorce, etc). You look for a win/win solution under the circumstance of no longer being willing to refrain indefinitely— which often looks like opening up or separation.
Same as you cannot ethically assume someone will to do an act with you and need their consent, you cannot force someone to consent to refrain from an act with others. You can only ask if they would consider restraint.
Consent eventually is assumed- you have spent a long time having sex, or refraining- and a change needs a heads up. However, the possibility for change is always there.
In poly, it should be the same way— only, consent NEEDS to be sought of BOTH PARTIES being asked to refrain.
Instead, it is often imposed.
That’s bad ethics.
We often hear “does your partner consent to us having sex?”
That’s wrong. It disempowers.
“Is your wife able to be okay with having sex with others- and is support of any kind, like forewarning or pacing, helpful?@ is a huge shift.
“I consent to let you do x (court someone else) creates problems - both because you cannot consent to someone else’s action, and because it cannot be withdrawn once given.
And consent is about you and can be withdrawn by definition.
H
The above turning of consent on it’s head is more consistent with good ethics.
If one finds it is not in their interest, it is always their right not to consent to a restraint. And it’s always reversible.
Ethics involves giving someone time to work through THEIR part of it— and ask questions like “Is it stlll good for me for me to be with you if you’re not going to be my only sexual partner; go on vacation with someone else; be home only 3-4 nights a week?”
That’s both a consent issue— consenting to stay in a relationship that has morphed— and a boundary issue. Boundaries, as a reminder, involve no imposition on the others, but control of your own actions. As I saw written recently, they are the distance at which you can love both yourself and another.
The reason I think we shy away from this— is because we think to give that much empowerment invites poly hell.
I think it’s the opposite.
If you THINK you have the ability to impose on others and find you don’y have as much power as you assumed- that’s an invitation for poly hell.
Also, you are expected to tolerate well and on your own what you “consented” to. So when you are struggling— but you were made responsible because you gave consent— you are on your own, with consequences of a choice you, not your partner, made— and that, also, is an invitation for poly hell.
And of course, having agency and opportunity to consent to an action is also an opportunity for poly hell.
If, instead, all are aware that the issue is “can the old partner still be with the hinge if hinge and new partner do this”— there’s sufficient awareness of old partner (OP’)s struggles to be compassionate and effective in support, including restraint.
The whole “there’s no guarantees this will work” is up front and central.
OP’s feelings are of paramount importance. All are motivated to check in, pay attention, and see what they can do to ease the position.
If a restraint is okay for one party under the circumstances, but not the other, and this is communicated, OP has a chance to try and adjust while the issue is coming to a head.
Remember that in ethical relations, no party can force the other to do an act.
So if OP is struggling, but the new person does not consent to be controlled, besides general concern of both New Person and Hinge, there is still Hinge’s consent for the new act. Hinge should never consent to something that can harm them, and that includes something that can upend their relationship.
This approach gets conflict out in the open. It stops false empowerment and promotes real empowerment. It gives everybody as much heads up of uncertainty and changing boundaries being an issue as possible, as notification is warranted when a restraint becomes a bother, not unbearable. It motivates all to find a solution that works for all 3 people individually and all three dryads and the group as a whole. And it ends a large part of couple privilege.
From my end- I would emotionally hate to be in anything different.
I would want new people to know that they have the right to NOT agree to refrain from anything indefinitely, or allow power over their relationship they are not comfortable with, and instead, the burden should be on the hinge to do the actions they think are moral. M
In summary Consent has been phrased wrongly for too long— “I consent to allow you to this”.
It should be “I consent to stay with you under the following circumstances (which may include monogamy, or having someone home 3-4 nights a week)” and “I consent to refrain from this at the moment, and will discuss it with you and attempt to find a win-win solution if it gets too much.
This way, BOTH bits of consent are reversible.
“I consent to let you do x (court someone else) creates problems - both because you cannot consent to someone else’s action, and because it cannot be withdrawn once given. And consent, by definition,is about you, and reversible.
I think this misunderstanding on a global level makes poly messier than it needs to be.
IMHO, a misunderstanding of multi-person consent means the power dynamic has been skewed in poly culture for a long time, and the imbalance has often resulted in emotional abuse by denying agency without consent. I believe it is because we still see through a mono lens.
In general terms, consent to *do an act* is asked by the one wanting the act to the one wanting to have it done to.
There is also consent involved in restraint. To *refrain* is asked by the one wanting refraining to the ones being asked to refrain. If they agree, they have consented to refrain. If they don’t, they have nots
In monogamous marriage vows, or even early on as dating partners,
each consent to refrain. If that consent is withdrawn, it needs to be talked about for trust to be present. However, the right to not refrain is always with the refrainer. If it ultimately is not a good thing to refrain, they are free to break it off - to be ethical, after asking the refrain requester how they would best like it handled (can you tolerate it and under what circumstances, or if I choose not to refrain, should I move out, divorce, etc). You look for a win/win solution under the circumstance of no longer being willing to refrain indefinitely— which often looks like opening up or separation.
Same as you cannot ethically assume someone will to do an act with you and need their consent, you cannot force someone to consent to refrain from an act with others. You can only ask if they would consider restraint.
Consent eventually is assumed- you have spent a long time having sex, or refraining- and a change needs a heads up. However, the possibility for change is always there.
In poly, it should be the same way— only, consent NEEDS to be sought of BOTH PARTIES being asked to refrain.
Instead, it is often imposed.
That’s bad ethics.
We often hear “does your partner consent to us having sex?”
That’s wrong. It disempowers.
“Is your wife able to be okay with having sex with others- and is support of any kind, like forewarning or pacing, helpful?@ is a huge shift.
“I consent to let you do x (court someone else) creates problems - both because you cannot consent to someone else’s action, and because it cannot be withdrawn once given.
And consent is about you and can be withdrawn by definition.
H
The above turning of consent on it’s head is more consistent with good ethics.
If one finds it is not in their interest, it is always their right not to consent to a restraint. And it’s always reversible.
Ethics involves giving someone time to work through THEIR part of it— and ask questions like “Is it stlll good for me for me to be with you if you’re not going to be my only sexual partner; go on vacation with someone else; be home only 3-4 nights a week?”
That’s both a consent issue— consenting to stay in a relationship that has morphed— and a boundary issue. Boundaries, as a reminder, involve no imposition on the others, but control of your own actions. As I saw written recently, they are the distance at which you can love both yourself and another.
The reason I think we shy away from this— is because we think to give that much empowerment invites poly hell.
I think it’s the opposite.
If you THINK you have the ability to impose on others and find you don’y have as much power as you assumed- that’s an invitation for poly hell.
Also, you are expected to tolerate well and on your own what you “consented” to. So when you are struggling— but you were made responsible because you gave consent— you are on your own, with consequences of a choice you, not your partner, made— and that, also, is an invitation for poly hell.
And of course, having agency and opportunity to consent to an action is also an opportunity for poly hell.
If, instead, all are aware that the issue is “can the old partner still be with the hinge if hinge and new partner do this”— there’s sufficient awareness of old partner (OP’)s struggles to be compassionate and effective in support, including restraint.
The whole “there’s no guarantees this will work” is up front and central.
OP’s feelings are of paramount importance. All are motivated to check in, pay attention, and see what they can do to ease the position.
If a restraint is okay for one party under the circumstances, but not the other, and this is communicated, OP has a chance to try and adjust while the issue is coming to a head.
Remember that in ethical relations, no party can force the other to do an act.
So if OP is struggling, but the new person does not consent to be controlled, besides general concern of both New Person and Hinge, there is still Hinge’s consent for the new act. Hinge should never consent to something that can harm them, and that includes something that can upend their relationship.
This approach gets conflict out in the open. It stops false empowerment and promotes real empowerment. It gives everybody as much heads up of uncertainty and changing boundaries being an issue as possible, as notification is warranted when a restraint becomes a bother, not unbearable. It motivates all to find a solution that works for all 3 people individually and all three dryads and the group as a whole. And it ends a large part of couple privilege.
From my end- I would emotionally hate to be in anything different.
I would want new people to know that they have the right to NOT agree to refrain from anything indefinitely, or allow power over their relationship they are not comfortable with, and instead, the burden should be on the hinge to do the actions they think are moral. M
In summary Consent has been phrased wrongly for too long— “I consent to allow you to this”.
It should be “I consent to stay with you under the following circumstances (which may include monogamy, or having someone home 3-4 nights a week)” and “I consent to refrain from this at the moment, and will discuss it with you and attempt to find a win-win solution if it gets too much.
This way, BOTH bits of consent are reversible.
“I consent to let you do x (court someone else) creates problems - both because you cannot consent to someone else’s action, and because it cannot be withdrawn once given. And consent, by definition,is about you, and reversible.
I think this misunderstanding on a global level makes poly messier than it needs to be.
Last edited: