problems I see with polyfidelity

Also, to the actual subject as started by Ravenscroft...

I would raise an eyebrow at the newbies who open mono relationships to poly and go forth seeking their "third" (unicorn) to be polyfi with, as being a bit of cart put before the horse at the very least.

There was a guy who was posting in the fetlife classifieds in my area, actually a very friendly acquaintance of mine from the scene, who went so far as to say that he was tired of dating and having transient relationships in life and wanted to find THE ONE. He was a man on a mission. He wanted a subbish woman who would be his and only his for the rest of their lives, and offered the same absolute loyalty and commitment in return. Proceeded to outline his prospects and fitness for the job.

Guess how many ladies were lining up to start planning eternity with this man? And he thought that what he wanted was what women wanted too, or that there have to be some of us that do, and that he'd get a good response. He was pretty dejected when it didn't work out that way.

I talked to him later and explained the thing where if you go to the wide world of strangers looking to meet partners, with this very rigid container of your needs that you expect to smash them into until they fit, people...women...don't necessarily like that idea. We prefer to meet and evaluate each other as individuals, rather than to think that any woman, first come first served, would do as long as they meet YOUR NEEDS. It's a lot of pressure to put on someone you have never even met yet.

Similarly, going out there expecting that a "third" is going to meet certain minimum thresholds and comply with your expectations...can often be very unrealistic and we all know it. I think it's better to meet people with an open mind, and see what (if anything) comes together. It's good to have kind of a general idea of what you need, but not a seriously rigid container. You've got to be at least somewhat flexible.

But if people come together organically, and then later decide that a closed model with or without a bunch of rules, is what they want...as long as they're all being GENUINE about what they as individuals are happy agreeing to...and understand that things sometimes do change over time, and give each other the space to grow...the ability to renegotiate...THAT I do not have "problems" with.
 
So yes, me. You think I was telling people they were wrong to be that way? Do you distinguish between disagreeing and disapproving?

AND you have a problem with critical conversation, so with the entire thread titled, "problems I see with polyfi"

I wonder what kind of discussion you were expecting to find in such a thread? Or where people who DO want to have those types of discussion should go? Or how I could have sought to understand the reasonings of others who work differently from me without asking for the why and how it differs?

Why would you come to a thread titled "problems I see with X" and criticize if you already know you don't like those kinds of discussions? ?

I didn't suggest you "should go" anywhere. You and Marcus seem to be suggesting I "should go" away if I don't want to be involved in an argument that disrespects the happy relationships of several people I kinda consider friends that I've been posting with here for a while. Nice folks who I've seen be supportive of all sorts, no matter their differences.

You telling me to take my delicate sensibilities elsewhere, too? Nah. I have as much right to post here as you do.

I can appreciate that Ravenscroft occasionally loses sight of the human element in his intellectuality. I've seen that tendency elsewhere, I don't think he means to be personal about it or disrespect anyone. He is questioning ideas, not people. I might still point out how it can be perceived though. Which is, on occasion, probably harsher than he intended. I would be shocked if he didn't already know it.

I know him a little from conversations we've had, and I think I have a sense of him. I don't think he was out to start a flame war. I can't speak for you or Marcus though, I don't know you. If you meant to have that sort of "critical conversation" that disrespects the rights of others who are perfectly happy with their own life arrangements, just because one of you has to be wrong for the other to be right...?

Well I'm gonna cast another vote for "I don't think that's how it works."

And also? I might agree that polyfidelity has some stuff in common with monogamy. But I would take the things that are "problems" and set them to one side. I think monogamy can be healthy and genuine, and so can polyfi. It can also be miserable and wretched. But just as I don't think that poly is objectively superior to monogamy, I don't think that relationship anarchy is objectively better than polyfidelity. And I don't think that the "problems" cited are unique in any way to polyfi.

So that's "why I'm here" even though I don't like slamming people who are different from me until one of us cracks.
 
Yes, but trouble is, "harmful" is subjective - that's why we communicate boundaries in the first place.

That's fair enough =)

What 'affects you' is subjective as well. If my spouse/SO went to a political rally for someone I didn't like I could care less. Their beliefs are their own and don't impact me or mine so that wouldn't ever come into play, yet others mentioned that as a restriction for them.

That being said, when I referred to harm, I definitely meant in the senses that I listed. There is a difference between deciding you can't emotionally handle something and someone doing something that is truly harmful. If you cannot emotionally handle something, that's still on you to determine what is best for you.

---- oops I have to run!

I don't judge! I was just trying to clarify what Marcus was trying to say for himself. You can agree to anything you want. I've made agreements with my BF as well. (We're D/s so you know, that's an interesting dynamic with poly lol)

BBL!


---- adn Spork you should stay too. Your perspective is also interesting :)
 
I think it's clear to most that I came here to understand and not judge, and was careful and respectful in my discussion. Nor have I ever said that having different preferences means one is better than the other. In fact, a few times here I've said how I could understand why that works and that I've been looking at trust wrong. To even hint that I'm "disrespecting the rights of others" is ludicrous.

And yes, it still seems strange to me that you would go into a thread the style of which you state you don't like, then criticize that it's in that style.

Look, I'm going to keep on asking willing people in this forum to help me understand why they do things that puzzle me instead of just writing them off. I'm here to understand things, even if i choose to go another way.

Not everyone equates questioning with challenging, and not everyone equates disagreement with disapproval.

If any of you are not interested and these types of discussions offend or threaten you, then do not engage with me with them. Better yet, TELL ME DIRECTLY how you want to be treated by me instead of saying other people are disrespected and hurt. I have ZERO interest in making people uncomfortable or converting them.

I'll try to keep my questions and viewpoints in threads that seem welcoming to the subject (as this one was)

You have the discussions you want, I'll have the kind I want. Neither is better.

As for you and I spork... Your style of discussion nearly ran me off the entire forum as it likely did with Epione. We obviously have nothing to offer each other here but drama, which I'm not interested in. Which is disappointing because I'd liked you as a poster the years I lurked.

So, I'm putting you on ignore and suggest you do the same. Please don't talk to me or about me. I will not respond.
 
Fair enough. We do seem to have an unfortunate preponderance of recent disconnects. Marcus, I've tangled with you recently too, and I apologize if it has started to feel personal.

I have had no desire to run anybody off of anywhere.

I particularly apologize if I caused newish poster Epione to leave, as I tried to say multiple times in the relevant thread that I was sorry and my argumentative tone was misdirected, somewhat unintentionally, by the language I was using. I get carried away with my overstatements and metaphors and junk. A personal flaw.

I honestly cannot decide if I am perceiving things as more prickly lately, even before I get involved and my own hackles start coming up, like am I seeing it sideways, can it be laid at the doorstep of a tetchy mood on my part? Or do I blame Mercury? Possibly Trump? Am I mistaken in what I am perceiving or causing the strife myself? Communicating poorly? Speaking a weird language? Should I withdraw for a while? I don't know. I might just try to avoid the more heated topics for a bit...
 
Actually, I'm out. I think it's obvious I'm not a fit here and just upsetting people.


For the record and future readers of thread, I'm not even a tiny bit against polyfi. I think it's just fine, and lived a version of it (with swinging) for a long time myself. Honestly, I'd be completely down to start it tomorrow, rules and all, if that's what my partners wanted and I thought it came from a good place.

What I couldn't understand were little points, namely: some of the gains people claimed to be getting from structuring it that way instead of just letting it be without an agreement could be gained without the rules. So I was certain that those rules were providing a benefit beyond what I had heard.

I was trying to pinpoint what a rule gives that you can't get otherwise. (I can find lots of ways around making a rule!)

The benefit is obvious (to me) in bdsm situations. So what was it in others? I learned a lot, some of which I can't make use of because it won't apply to me, some of it useful.

I learned I looked at trust as black and white, which is a silly thing to do.

I learned rules help couples clarify, very specifically, which behaviors will make their partner uncomfortable, which many need and don't want to risk making a guess on a case by case basis.

I learned that the hassle and pain necessary to eliminate the need for the rule isn't usually worth the effort and potential gain if a group is happy as is.

I observed rules work best when they have a procedure in place for if and when they want to change them.

I learned rules can add a layer of protection and structure and give strength to a relationship that wouldn't work without.

I theorized how it can help in both healthy and unhealthy ways to avoid fear. (Can be good or bad)

I was able to compare to benefits of structure of goal making, and with that I'll continue to try to brainstorm ways to get the same benefits of rules but implementing it more like goal making.

Again, I'm sorry if seemed like I was saying anything was bad when I was saying I was different. I really was talking to everyone, and I wish I could stay so someone could explain to me how rules and vetos are different for romantic threats vs other life threats, or to help come up with ideas on how to make rules more like goal making.

Hopefully my summary inspires any anti polyfi posters to actually look at listen to what other poly people experience.
 
Oh well, not out of the internet after all.

ArtemisHunt, I really love your summary, I'm so glad you wrote it out. I may store it in my blog. These are remarkable achievements to understand. I wished I could say I learned as much from the discussion :)

I went over the thread from page 6 on and I see that although there was friction (with Marcus and restrictions), it was mostly constructive I really only got tripped up on this post of yours. It must be a good summary of your worldview, but it's very hard not to read as judgy for me. (I'm not even identifying as polyfidelitous, although we functionally are, lol!) So I really felt like everything that was written fell on deaf ears. I see from the summary that it really didn't.

Yet I realized when rereading, that the topic is very important to me, as my partner is very much not the rules type.

So, although I know you said you're leaving the thread, let me still ask.
Agreeing to abide by a rule doesn't make it less a rule! I would expect you to agree to the rules. In fact, if you have rules you didn't agree to in a relationship, you have bigger problems.
Is there no difference then for you between rules and agreements?

By making it a rule, it becomes cheating if break it. It's restriction of a behavior, something you aren't allowed to do even if you want to, think it's right, etc.
Is there a lot of blame/guilt attached for you to the word rule?
(If so, can we use agreement instead of rule?)

My understanding is:
By making an agreement, and breaking it, you're both breaking your word and upsetting your partner. So far I agree.
If you want to do something that is "prohibited" by the agreement? Well, then you're out of integrity, either with the action you want to make in the moment, or by agreeing in the first place.
If you think what you're up to do is "right", well, then you either do it and carry the consequences or you stop to renegotiate first.

My question is: What is the problem with putting restrictions on your own behavior? I feel it's done all the time. You sign a contract for work where you agree to show up for a certain amount of time (for the benefit of money), you behave in public places (for the benefit of being perceived as a decent human), etc etc.
Where is the problem with agreeing to "rules" in a relationship?

And, one last
...I'll trust that you will keep me updated on that possibility so I don't feel blindsided and that we will work together to get through it. ...
even with things like that, keeping you updated, do you never just ask your partner to approve/promise/agree? If so, where's the difference?

I could go on with, but I'm tired so I want to stop here. Feel free to answer or not, or PM me. Anyone else is free to answer too :)

I was able to compare to benefits of structure of goal making, and with that I'll continue to try to brainstorm ways to get the same benefits of rules but implementing it more like goal making.
I thought a rule was a tool to achieve a goal.
If I were to make a fidelity agreement, I would do it to eliminate distraction and focus on the depth of my relationship fully.

I wish I could stay so someone could explain to me how rules and vetos are different for romantic threats vs other life threats.
Now this is a really good question, and I'll be thinking about it. IMHO rules/agreements are not very different - and I don't hold much of a veto. Your examples,
I also get puzzled why we think it's ok to make rules about this type of threat and not others, and veto romance but not others. What about those with an overbearing controlling parent? A career with a nightmare boss sucking they life and time from them? A mooching best friend with issues who mistreats them?
for me they may all warrant some kind of agreement between partners (something like "I'm changing the locks now, and not giving your mother the new key!" ;) :D ... just kidding). But in some way, yes, romantic partners are different - at least in the sense that the emotional response a "threat" from another partner tends to be more emotional and less pragmatic, then with some kind of life danger.
 
Someone suggested to me that it looks like I launched this thread "to start a flamewar" then stepped back to enjoy the fireworks. That is wrong at so many points that I wouldn't even know where to begin parsing it.

And that's kinda where I saw this thread go. It rode off in all directions, & there's no way I could have found enough free time to respond to the valid points, let alone address the nonsense. The brief response, then:

What I wanted to address was not unlike how (not so long ago) this forum looked at monogamy vs. Monogamism, the practice as opposed to the extreme ideal. As well, romantic love vs. Romanticism.

There are people who profess themselves quite happy in a relationship with intentionally closed boundaries, which I see as a not-particularly-remarkable form of polyamory.

But then there is the extreme ideal of Polyfidelity.

And just as it's very difficult to look closely at Monogamism without setting off casually monogamous people, apparently poking around Polyfidelity is an emotional threat to people who merely happen to be in a closed relationship.

I have seen the ideal waved about for ~35 years now. Polyfidelity is held up time & again as superior (morally, ethically, emotionally, intellectually, economically...) & "AIDS-safe" without proponents feeling the need to discuss HOW any of these is verifiably so in practice.

Big-letter Polyfidelity also provides safe refuge for those who want to "safely expand" their Monogamism without the requisite learning curve(s) inherent to Polyamory (introspection, honesty, communication, etc.). That's why I see lowercase polyfidelity as an expression of polyamory, yet Polyfidelity as an expression of monogamy.

There are some who want to "dip a toe in" polyamory by taking that "safe" first step, & Polyfidelity appears. When I hear that, I imagine a clutch of adults trying to learn how to swim by flopping about in a wading pool. :(

And so I stand up to disagree. I believe that letting that myth continue to wander around unquestioned is setting "monogamish" people up for failure -- they open themselves to risk (emotional & otherwise) with minimal upside for growth or even success at their long-range goals.

And they remain ill-equipped to possibly step into open-form nonmonogamy, & thus stuck in closed-form, so their choice consists of figuring out (with pretty much no aid from online peers much less IRL friends) how to make Polyfidelity work, or return chagrined to monogamy.

That Loving More ad certainly encourages the belief that the kiddie pool is a GREAT step toward the Olympic trials. :rolleyes: (This is a legacy that remains from its founders.) The Wikipedia article Polyfidelity has the rah-rah tone that encourages that path. And there are certainly polyfolk in situationally closed relationships who harbor deep doubts about what they're doing & so see Polyfidelity as needing protection from scrutiny.

I feel that encouraging others to wallow in ignorance (or flop around in a wading pool) in order to bolster anyone's self-esteem is beyond immoral.
 
Someone suggested to me that it looks like I launched this thread "to start a flamewar" then stepped back to enjoy the fireworks. That is wrong at so many points that I wouldn't even know where to begin parsing it.

While this may be true...the entire post following this opening statement not only reveals an extreme bias towards what YOU consider to be the only true form of poly, it is almost dripping in its condescension and smug superiority.

Speaking as one who has lived in an incredibly satisfying poly fidelitous relationship for more than 10 years...frankly...I don't give a fuck whether you think I play in the "wading pool" of poly or not. We do what works for us. I find your need to rate your views of poly as superior or somehow more genuine to be rather...amusing.
 
Last edited:
I brought my perceptions from previous interactions with Ravenscroft, to my opinion of his intent.

I think that the original post, as the latest, as other posts I've seen by you (RC) are idea-intense and discussing more in the architecture of the concepts but not really sensitive to the human element that LIVES the concepts you're talking about. Then others come along and it starts getting all sorts of personal all over the place. I don't think that was your intention, but I DO think it could have been foreseen with perhaps slightly more sensitivity or compassion, had that been a concern. But I think you're not really interested so much as just wanting to fiddle with the ideas and concepts, and if others bring their feelings to the work bench, that isn't your problem. Insensitive, perhaps...malicious, not so much.

???

That is my interpretation. Maybe I am wrong?

I also look at all of this as a cart/horse, chicken/egg, what is a person putting before what-now kind of a deal, much as with those other conversations about R/romanticism or M/monogamy etc. It's questioning people who enshrine an ideal and an expectation, rather than those who come to a practice in the wild that simply works for them and their SOs and do it. Like maybe a significant thing of being poly, or properly poly, is a willingness to have a certain cognitive flexibility in what you might consider workable in terms of relationships. Structure the relationship around the humans, rather than stuffing the humans into the model.

No?

It is under these auspices that I personally consider myself polyish even as I practice a closed dyad. I recognize more meaningful aspects to human relating than merely sex, though many of my "muggle" acquaintances would say that not only am I monogamous, but I'm doing even that wrong because I still flirt with other men, which is like "cheating lite." No...I follow our agreements, and I am permitted my playful flirtations and semi-intimate friendships, and even sexual exploration...with women. But the form of our agreements evolved as a custom fit for our needs. I did not set out as a single, saying:

"I require precisely this, this, and that, and no more. You must be willing to agree to exactly these terms and fit into this picture of my Happily Ever After Fidelitous Model Relationship Thing."

Nope. I'm just making all this shit up as I go.

I feel that you (Ravenscroft) are challenging those who approach relationships with a rigid concept that they expect other human beings to fit into...which is similar to how Monogamists (people I refer to as "muggles"...those who narrow mindedly follow an Institution of How Relationships Work without ever considering that there may be other viable options) operate. Not so much those who find other humans, relate to them, communicate needs (even needs for closed models and polyfi) and then do whatever works for them. The first puts the Relationship first, the second puts the People (and their needs) first.

This is me trying to see if I am reading you right, Ravenscroft, am I anywhere near the mark?
 
... reveals an extreme bias towards what YOU consider to be the only true form of poly, it is almost dripping in its condescension and smug superiority. ...frankly...I don't give a fuck whether you think I play in the "wading pool" of poly or not. We do what works for us. I find your need to rate your views of poly as superior or somehow more genuine to be rather...amusing.
It's fine by me that you choose to cherrypick what I've said in order to find personal insult, then use this to rationalize your own defensive meanness. Not much I can do about it in any case. ;) But it kinda illustrates what I'm trying to say about the inherent (fundamental, even) irrationality of "-Ism thinking", & neatly blocks any need to present a cogent countercase. If someone can make a case beyond "you suck!!" that I'm wrong or too limited in my observation, then this improves my viewpoint AND actually adds to the conversation.

I don't "hate monogamy" in any way, even though I find high-church Monogamism distasteful because it's antiintellectual, by definition.

In like manner, it's not closed-form relationships I see as problematic, but roping it off as somehow different from (& even superior to) polyamory prevents rational thought.

Heck, I don't even have a grudge against "unicorn-hunting" couples, certainly not the reflexive kneejerk flaming they sometimes get from people around here. I do believe that such starry-eyed noobs need to understand what they're getting into, & the difficulties they're facing in even looking for "our girl." I can easily make the case that it's immoral to NOT tell them such.

I will admit that I do suck at "being sensitive" when addressing something I see as negativistic & thus sorely in need of discussion. The "looking" couples are often in a sort of pre-NRE, deluded by their fantasy, & (IME, at least) approaching them gently is pretty much the same as letting them walk off the cliff, but with more (wasted) work.

In a 1982 strip, Berke Breathed (speaking through Opus) introduced the term offensensitivity. The Wiktionary defines it as "inappropriately high sensitivity to perceived offense," which isn't quite right; I'd make it more like "the attempt to forever insulate every person everywhere from potential upset" -- basically, elevating an unfounded (perhaps indefensible) prejudice in order to protect the mythical Some People. As one blogger said in 2010, people increasingly
are taking personal offense at largely inoffensive bits of objective reality [then] demanding that the rest of the Universe be offended as well. When this invariably fails to occur, the original offendee becomes... well... offended. And so the cycle continues. The perpetually offended seem to go out of their way to create situations at which they can take offense.

Simply declaring oneself offended by something has be come an acceptable means of shutting down any potential opposition.... Totally inappropriate over-reaction to even the slightest manufactured slight or insult is now the normal order of business.
If daring to calmly disagree with "the way things are" means I deserve personal attack, then Trump has indeed won. That in itself speaks volumes.

I prefer to believe that if anyone here encounters a topic that sets them to irrationality, they will be mature/sane enough to not participate.
 
If daring to calmly disagree with "the way things are" means I deserve personal attack, then Trump has indeed won. That in itself speaks volumes.

Just curious what volumes it speaks and why this would signal that Trump has won. For centuries, for millennia, people have been personally attacked for questioning the status quo.
 
If daring to calmly disagree with "the way things are" means I deserve personal attack, then Trump has indeed won. That in itself speaks volumes.

Nothing you could have said proves my point any more plainly than this. You don't get to decide how or what constitutes "the way things are". And I fail to see how my post was a "personal attack". In fact it is laughable when your entire post was set up to characterize those of us who practice polyfidelity are somehow in the "wading pool" of poly. Typical of how those who spend their time insulting others who don't share their particularly narrow views respond when they are challenged for their insultingly childish attacks. And it is still amusing that you believe you have some sort of high ground in the discussion.

I'm glad you recognize that you can be insensitive. I can be too. And I totally agree with you that those who promote polyfidelity as different or somehow superior to other forms of poly are closed minded and not given to rational discussion. The problem I had with your post is that is exactly what you have done regarding your preferred form of poly. Same apple...just different side.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top