On analogies...

YouAreHere

Well-known member
I posted this to my blog thread, but figured it might make for an interesting discussion, so I figured I'd dump it here too...

One of the more prevalent communication issues I've seen (first hand and on the Mono/Poly Yahoo list) between Mono and Poly folks is explaining Polyamory to someone who just doesn't get it. Some folks use the "but you don't love your kids any differently, do you?" analogy to explain the way they love their partners, but that analogy can fall flat with many, including me.

Why? It's very difficult for many of us to equate love for a partner with love for a child; they're two very different types of love. When I love someone like a partner, I want to share my life with them, integrate with them somehow. My love for my children is completely different - I want to raise them, guide them, protect them, but ultimately raise them to be functional human adults with the goal of them growing up, going out on their own, and leaving to live their own lives. Not with the goal of growing old with them, retiring with them, and don't even try to equate a sexual relationship with someone using this analogy. It raises an "ick" factor that's hard to get past.

Many folks try the friend analogy instead: you have multiple friends, and your friendship with one doesn't suffer when you have another friend, right?

Well, sure. But you still have very different relationships, and why not just be friends with people if you want that connection? Why does sex have to be involved? Why does it have to be a romantic relationship to be able to enjoy that person's company?

It still falls flat, because the interpersonal relationships in the analogy overshadow what the person is trying to say. Both sides end up frustrated at times, unable to just get the other person to see what they're saying.

With a recent change in Chops' life, another analogy popped to mind, and I shared this on the Mono/Poly list during a time when a few new folks were struggling with having the "poly bomb" dropped on them by their spouses (and for some, in a pretty spectacularly awful way).

If we're going to be talking apples and oranges anyway, let's go all the way to comparing apples to elephants and just focus on the feeling behind it, not the relationships.

Motorcycles.

This is what I posted recently to the list:
My ex-husband made me promise to NEVER ride a motorcycle - that they were too dangerous. I'd end up with a messed-up leg, walk with a limp, die and my children would have no mother, etc.

Now, my partner has a motorcycle. He loves the feeling of riding a bike. There's a freedom he feels, an openness, and a bit of a brotherhood (you wave at EVERYONE ELSE on a bike - LOL).

Where my partner sees freedom and enjoyment, my ex saw sketchy people, potential death, "stupidity", and pain.
And I'm somewhere in the middle, where I know that not all people who ride bikes are morons, but getting on the back of a bike at highway speeds terrifies the CRAP out of me. But I'll take the test, and I'll learn, and I'll get out there until I can't take it, or I get hurt - because I want to enjoy the ride, even if I never drive a bike myself. And I'll have a few scares, no doubt.

Some folks wouldn't want to take the chance - too risky. And that's okay.
Some folks would go, "OMG, I can do this too?" and go out and take the test the next day. That's okay too.
And some folks would swallow down their fear and go for that ride, and see how it feels.

But if a crazy rider and a risk-averse person are trying to ride together, it's going to fail miserably unless you get some ground rules in place.
There aren't any helmets in Poly, though.

It also seems to work when people make the comment, "Well why does it matter where I go when I'm out? Why is it different if I'm out with a friend versus being out with a partner?"

The circumstances DO matter, though, when it's something that causes you stress. If you're concerned about motorcycles, then it's a huge difference between your partner taking a nice long drive and taking a nice long bike ride. You may be completely stressed out (worrying about their safety, in this case, but the reason isn't what matters here - it's the emotion).

The worried partner may ask for the partner to not go. They may ask for their partner to drive. Or they may ask their partner to check in at regular intervals, so they know that they're safe.

Some die-hard bikers may find any of those options unbearable or controlling, and may completely chafe at being restricted in any way. Others may be willing to compromise and call in, or drive up with their bike in a trailer and just bike around smaller, slower roads... or they may give their partner time to get used to the idea of a longer ride with the hope (or plan) that they will ride again later.

Some worriers may never stop worrying. Others may ease up over time, but still want the check-ins. Others may just stop worrying over time and let it become the new normal. At any rate, though, the circumstances (travel by motorcycle) are the thing triggering the stress, not the action itself (long trip).

Apples and elephants, but the emotions are expressed in a way that doesn't bring almost-comparable-but-not-quite relationships into the mix. It helped me relate a bit better, anyway.

Thoughts?
 
Like you I logically understand the analogy of loving more than one of your children, but it doesn't speak to the emotion. I do relate to the friendship analogy better, because I have a few friends who I am as open, trusting, and allow myself to be vulnerable with them as I do a partner - just without the sex.

Your motorcycle analogy is certainly another avenue to help the explanation along. I think the trick is to get someone to emotionally view the subject differently.

The following actually takes the idea out so a person can view his or her own thought process - something else that *might* help.

The Philosopher and I have been having the discussion about how many times people automatically attach a meaning to a behavior. We call it the IF(action)/THEN(meaning) equation. It has many applications, but in the mono viewpoint it goes IF you love someone else / THEN you don't love me. Very common assumption, but when dealing with poly people, totally incorrect. Yet this "equation" is programmed as truth from a very early age.

I like the use of the equation because it allows people to study their own thinking. Of course, they have to want to. Many people have no desire to do so. They are comfortable with their assumptions and underlying worldview.
 
The motorcycle analogy may be easier to process as symbolic (you have a literal symbol in the bike), but the friends or children analogy is also supposed to be symbolic. It's just most people take it literally, since they're closer in type, both affectionate relationships.
 
Grabbing this from the blog and adding here to the discussion:

Hmmm. I guess I don't see poly as being more risky than monogamy. (I assumed the 'crazy rider' person is the poly person and the risk-averse person is the mono person. This may not be a correct assumption on my part.)

I realized after I posted it that this could come across as offensive, but I decided to leave it in, and not have to put a (sic) next to my edit. ;)

The context this came out of was a new list member whose husband had dropped the poly bomb rather badly - this is what's happening, having her meet the couple he was talking with without understanding what was happening, and getting the "I love you but I'm not IN love with you" bomb dropped on her all at the same time. She reacted to the friend/child analogies with one of juggling chainsaws, so the "risky" thing was already built up.

However, from many mono people's point of view (not trying to make a broad generalization here - this is just from observation and experience), it *does* feel risky, though. What does our newly opened marriage even mean or look like now? Are you just going to leave me? Are you shopping around? Am I going to get an STD? Am I going to feel trapped and displaced in a financial/living situation with someone who moves someone else into my home? What does retirement even look like? What happens when I'm old? Can I count on you to be there for me?

It all deviates from script - the "I will be there for you, loving you, forever."

That said, it isn't just motorcycles that can run into problems; there are many more car accidents on the road. Likewise, monogamy isn't a silver bullet that eliminates these issues. It just makes you FEEL safer, even if you're going at unsafe speeds. Being on a motorcycle brings all those vulnerabilities to light.
 
The motorcycle analogy may be easier to process as symbolic (you have a literal symbol in the bike), but the friends or children analogy is also supposed to be symbolic. It's just most people take it literally, since they're closer in type, both affectionate relationships.

True - all analogies are symbolic. It's just difficult to bridge the communication gap when the folks you're trying to get your point across to don't get your analogy because it fundamentally feels wrong to them, or at least feels very differently to them than it does to you. Which is the whole point of trying to find an analogy in the first place. :)
 
I think the trick is to get someone to emotionally view the subject differently. [...]

The Philosopher and I have been having the discussion about how many times people automatically attach a meaning to a behavior. We call it the IF(action)/THEN(meaning) equation. It has many applications, but in the mono viewpoint it goes IF you love someone else / THEN you don't love me. Very common assumption, but when dealing with poly people, totally incorrect. Yet this "equation" is programmed as truth from a very early age.

I like the use of the equation because it allows people to study their own thinking. Of course, they have to want to. Many people have no desire to do so. They are comfortable with their assumptions and underlying worldview.

As a software engineer, I love the IF/THEN model. ;)

In the beginning, it's very difficult for someone to be told that an assumption they've held for their entire lives is wrong. Many folks take that as a blanket, "You're wrong" (and it doesn't help if they get hit with proselytizing and are actually TOLD their beliefs are wrong).

In reality, it's "this assumption is wrong in this situation for this person", but it takes some good communication skills to get the full meaning across and not just end that sentence at the word "wrong".

You're right about it being hard to do the self-introspection. It's extremely counterintuitive, though, for someone to think, "You're asking me to open our marriage. The fact that you say you still love me goes against everything we've ever been taught. And *I'm* supposed to do a lot of work to accept this behavior, when it's deviating from the norm?"

In my case, it was easier to realize I had to do the work, since I was going in with my eyes open (even though I didn't realize how much work it'd be). Someone who feels like they've had a bomb dropped on them will probably be less inclined in the first place, as their hurt will need to heal first.
 
Crossing the stream (of threads)

Here is my comment on YAH's blog that she quotes from above. It's more appropriate here than on her blog so I'm cutting and pasting it.

"Hmmm. I guess I don't see poly as being more risky than monogamy. (I assumed the 'crazy rider' person is the poly person and the risk-averse person is the mono person. This may not be a correct assumption on my part.)

Any way, both are subject to disappointment, relationship failures, people behaving stupidly or thoughtlessly. There is more opportunity for people to be people when there are more relationships, or potential relationships. I suppose that could be perceived as more risky. Still, I just don't perceive poly as being inherently more risky - the risks are pretty much the same as mono relationships.

Interesting!"

If/Then statements take me back to learning Basic in middle school. Ah memories.

"However, from many mono people's point of view (not trying to make a broad generalization here - this is just from observation and experience), it *does* feel risky, though. What does our newly opened marriage even mean or look like now? Are you just going to leave me? Are you shopping around? Am I going to get an STD? Am I going to feel trapped and displaced in a financial/living situation with someone who moves someone else into my home? What does retirement even look like? What happens when I'm old? Can I count on you to be there for me?" (Quoted from one of YAH's comments above.)

I totally get that it feels more risky to folks who are either mono, or mulling over shifting to poly or other variety of ethical non-monogamy. But all these questions come up in mono relationships all the time (ok maybe not the moving other people in). I think the feeling of risk is from the lack of a road map, or set expectations. Monogamy does have an established order and expectations that people are aware of. It doesn't mean anyone who is monogamous has to follow these expectations but there is the option of, well, autopilot. Some folks find that deeply comforting - that they are doing what most people do.

I think the socially approved set of expectations mask the risk of monogamy. Thinking about or moving to poly removes that mask, exposes the assumptions, and people have to spend time and think about what they want and need, as opposed to following the script. Most monogamous relationships end before death. Given the expectations around monogamy, that means most monogamists fail at monogamy. Monogamy is a risky business! Anyway, while I see how it feels so much more risky, poly is actually not more risky than monogamy (except perhaps in sheer numbers - more relatiionships equals more chances for people to screw up). There are questions that come up that never come up in monogamy (moving in the girlfriend for example, dealing with one's couple privilege) but I don't see that as increased risk. Just the increased need to make conscious choices instead of being on autopilot and doing the accepted thing.

And this has moved away a bit from the analogy angle but, to my knowledge, the risks of poly vs. risks of mono have not really come up before here.
 
Fastest way to make my skin itch is to bring up the children analogy. I have three children who I love with every beat of my heart. I am not in love with them. I love them equally, but each love is a bit different and special. I bond with all three every day, and I bond with Matt. The bonds I share with each them are not the same either. They are all amazing little humans, but the love I share with their father is not even in the same realm. This analogy will always fall short. This is like comparing the love I have for my siblings and the love I have for each of our parents. They are not the same. There is an ick factor for me. The only similarity between parenting and poly dating is a schedule, but even then, it falls short because not every child is involved in after school co-curricular sporting activities, music lessons, practise, etc.

However, from many mono people's point of view (not trying to make a broad generalization here - this is just from observation and experience), it *does* feel risky, though. What does our newly opened marriage even mean or look like now? Are you just going to leave me? Are you shopping around? Am I going to get an STD? Am I going to feel trapped and displaced in a financial/living situation with someone who moves someone else into my home? What does retirement even look like? What happens when I'm old? Can I count on you to be there for me?

To me, both are risky. Those are all valid concerns, and in the beginning, Matt actually asked similar questions. Only our relationship was not newly opened after being established. In theory, he knew about my past polyamorist choices, but he had never had any experience with it because it was just us for almost a year. When my ex came in to my life, those questions cropped up. It took me being in his shoes to understand why he was concerned.

I turned back the hands of the clock--so to speak, and I felt this was risky. The risk was not so much dealing with Matt all the time. It was more so no longer free falling (read that as doing what the hell I wanted) and learning to adapt to expectations (being more than a wife on scheduled days and actually tending to the relationship the way I always believed). I had never been mono a day in my romantic life. I asked my husband the opposite of all those questions. What does our closed/psuedo mono marriage mean? (I recently asked, "What is now inappropriate when it comes to dealing with others?") Am I going to like you once the dopamine levels simmer back down to normal? Are we even compatible now? Are you going to feel smothered and trapped by my constant presence? What is life going to look like with just the two of us? It has been a daunting prospect.

I dislike when people imply or flat out say that a way a person believes is wrong. It should never end there. I actually would not call a belief an assumption. There are some people who are incapable of loving more than one person at a time or even being sexually involved with more than one person at a time (me). I learned that over time, and it has nothing to do with being sex-negative, cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, or even childhood teachings. I am just waiting for the day that someone tells me I am sex-negative or whatever. It is out of my personal comfort level, so I do not believe that choice is wrong for me.

You're right about it being hard to do the self-introspection. It's extremely counterintuitive, though, for someone to think, "You're asking me to open our marriage. The fact that you say you still love me goes against everything we've ever been taught. And *I'm* supposed to do a lot of work to accept this behavior, when it's deviating from the norm?"

This. I have often wondered...what--if any--purpose does it serve the mono partner in these situations? I can do self-introspection without someone challenging my beliefs and directly or indirectly implying that everything I have ever believed was incorrect. Then again, I am not keen on changing the way I believe to appease the likes of anyone else.

In my case, it was easier to realize I had to do the work, since I was going in with my eyes open (even though I didn't realize how much work it'd be). Someone who feels like they've had a bomb dropped on them will probably be less inclined in the first place, as their hurt will need to heal first.

Mmhm. I know I would have even less motivation.
 
Last edited:
The analogy makes sense to me. It's not that poly itself is so much riskier than mono (though it may seem that way to those of us who have always been mono without difficulty). It's that big life changes can be destabilizing stressors on a relationship, and they can also highlight problems that otherwise would have gone unnoticed.

Moving in together? There are people who are compatible in dating relationships who annoy the hell out of each other when they share living space.

Shifting to long-distance because someone has to move for work? If you're into peaceable coexistence, rather than making all of your time together into a Peak Experience, this is going to be hard.

Going through pregnancy and raising a child? Taking on a shared task like this is a steep, steep learning curve, exacerbated by lack of sleep and unexplained crying of Tiny Person, and it takes time and energy away from things you used to do together.

Opening a relationship? Especially when one partner was quite happy being monogamous and was surprised by the request to open? Especially when neither party has any experience with poly, and the person who wants to open is in the kid-in-candy-shop phase? I would like to think that even if I were poly, I would understand why a mono person might find that risky.
 
I like the motorcycle analogy. Especially considering my experience; in 2010, we were in Pisa, and Fly convinced me to rent (and the shop guy to rent to us) motorcycles with the idea of tooling around the city, despite the fact that neither of us had an endorsement on our license. I had a really, really bad feeling, but I knew Fly wanted to do it and I didn't want to be the scaredy cat who takes away all the fun. So, Fly took off down the road, but I had never ridden a motorcycle and no one had told me how to make it go. In a panic to keep up with Fly, I suddenly made it go - over the curb, through a bistro table, and directly into a brick wall. I was scraped head to toe, had my first ambulance ride, and ended up with broken ribs that still hurt me every day because they didn't heal properly.

I guess my experience could be the analogy of the poly person who is so enthusiastic that they leave their less certain partner into the dust, causing a wreck and lasting pain. As well as the partner who doesn't want to be a wet blanket or stand in the way of the other's happiness, so they throw caution to the wind and do things they don't want to do.:rolleyes:

The kid analogy is weird to me. You don't choose your kids, but I am definitely choosing the people I bring into my life. And (for most of us), the love for your kids is everlasting, but I fully expect some or all of my romantic relationships to change or end.

The friend example makes more sense to me, because the categories of friends and lovers are very fluid for me. But I don't think it probably makes a lot of sense to a person who doesn't experience friendships that way.

Moonlight is mono, and I know none of these would really help her wrap her head around it. For her, it's not about worrying or risks, it's about why on earth would you even want to ride a motorcycle when you've got a gorgeous luxury car available all the time?
 
When I first told Hubby I was polyamorous, he went to the children analogy first, I think as a way to help himself understand as well as to reassure me.

He ended with, "Love isn't finite. You're bringing more love into the world."

Not an analogy, but as good a way to put it as any. Or at least, I'm bringing more love into my life, and why is love a bad thing?
 
Interesting -- I like the motorbike analogy. That's new to me. :) But it basically covers different beliefs. One partner believes motorbikes are awesome. The other one thinks they are scary.

I find it easier to have that "mono-poly" conversation without any "right /wrong" evaluation. Because who am I to say what is right or wrong for someone else other than me? Who made me boss of the other person? Nobody. Take an approach like that in the conversation? It could become each one "defending" own positions. Rather than each one sharing information to reach understanding of what the other person's beliefs or preferences are.

A while back a monoamorous/monogamous friend of mine was having a hard time processing some polyship she knew of breaking down and she made the statement that "Ugh! Poly never works and is always doom! I never see any work. Why bother!?"

I reminded her none of mine were "doom" and she known ME for decades.

She modified it to "Well, none around here that I see. It is crazy."

I reminded her she cannot see everything and could not measure all polyships by the one she can see that is going all soap opera. Healthy polyships are usually minding their own biz living their regular life. Just like many monoships are busy living regular life. Not all monoships go soap opera. The "success" of any of those relationship models lies on the shoulders of the participants -- monoships, polyships, whatever-ships. And one can manage to break up without going all drama-lama about it.

She modified it to "Well, I couldn't do it. I am much too jealous a person." (I was amused, because what makes her think I never experience jealousy? It's only an emotion, it isn't going to kill me. )

What I actually said was "That's cool. You like monogamous shape relating for you. I can like whatever shape I like for me. Fair enough. Everyone can like what they like."

Oddly, that's when she became more curious and started asking questions seeking understanding about polyshipping structure and let "the defense wall" drop. Once I reaffirmed that her choices for herself are fine to have for herself. We had a nice convo about what we each think the pros/cons to monoshipping are and what we each think the pros/cons to polyshipping are. It was not longer personal about why WE pick what WE pick.

I think how well that "mono-poly" conversation goes partially lies in how it presented and word choices in the conversation.

This? Terrible presentation. :(

The context this came out of was a new list member whose husband had dropped the poly bomb rather badly - this is what's happening, having her meet the couple he was talking with without understanding what was happening, and getting the "I love you but I'm not IN love with you" bomb dropped on her all at the same time. She reacted to the friend/child analogies with one of juggling chainsaws, so the "risky" thing was already built up.

It doesn't not sound like she's being asked to consider her willingness to open the marriage and participate in a polyship. It sounds like he's making unilateral decision. Not very respectful. It is radically changing the structure of their shared relationship and her life without her input! It is also putting her on the spot in front of some stranger people. Hackles going up and getting defensive? I wouldn't blame her. How can one feel emotionally safe with a spouse that puts you in that kind of position? Yeesh. :eek:

If those "dating potentials" were watching this go down and see this is how he treats his existing partner by dropping bombs? Maybe they want reconsidering signing up to be his new partners!

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
As a software engineer, I love the IF/THEN model. ;)

The Philosopher is a Unix admin. :) He was the one who came up with applying IF/THEN to thought processes in our conversation.

Someone who feels like they've had a bomb dropped on them will probably be less inclined in the first place, as their hurt will need to heal first.

Agreed. No one is going to do well with the rug being ripped out from under him/her. I find that behavior very callous.
 
Last edited:
I dislike when people imply or flat out say that a way a person believes is wrong. It should never end there. I actually would not call a belief an assumption. There are some people who are incapable of loving more than one person at a time or even being sexually involved with more than one person at a time (me). I learned that over time, and it has nothing to do with being sex-negative, cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, or even childhood teachings. I am just waiting for the day that someone tells me I am sex-negative or whatever. It is out of my personal comfort level, so I do not believe that choice is wrong for me.

Utilizing the IF/THEN statement does not call into question the mono person's belief. If the mono person states: IF I love another, THEN I don't love you, that is a perfectly valid statement of how s/he feels and operates. But when one applies his or her own mode of operation to others, then s/he will be wrong part of the time. When she makes assumptions about other monos, she may be exactly right; but when s/he makes assumptions about poly people based on her own beliefs s/he will be wrong because with poly people the equation IF I love another THEN I don't love you is false.

Does that mean that the mono person is wrong to choose to live in a monogamous relation. No, absolutely not. Are they wrong to feel as they do? Nope. But with whatever subject we deal people should be cautious in generalizing their personal philosophy to everyone and assume it's universally accurate.
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Bookbug. I have never actually heard anyone say that or imply it. Interesting. I wonder how I would have responded to that if/then rationalisation. At the least, I would respect it--even if it did not mirror my own beliefs. I have been on both sides--told that being poly is wrong (mono inclined individuals) and now that being mono is wrong (wiring inclined individuals). I do not care for people to project their beliefs on to me. Truthfully, I could not give a damn if I tried, but that might not be the most polite or dignified thing to say. :)
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Bookbug. I have never actually heard anyone say that or imply it. Interesting. I wonder how I would have responded to that if/then rationalisation. At the least, I would respect it--even if it did not mirror my own beliefs. I have been on both sides--told that being poly is wrong (mono inclined individuals) and now that being mono is wrong (wiring inclined individuals). I do not care for people to project their beliefs on to me. Truthfully, I could not give a damn if I tried, but that might not be the most polite or dignified thing to say. :)

LOL! Yes, I usually do not concern myself with others opinions. They are certainly entitled to them. However, how people reach conclusions - often inaccurate conclusions - fascinates me. So I am like a kid in a candy store putting thought processes through the IF(action)THEN(meaning) lens. :p
 
She modified it to "Well, I couldn't do it."

Why does everyone say that as if I'm asking them to date me or if I care whether they'd be poly or not? I wonder what they'd say to you if they said, "I'm going to the bathroom." And you said, "I'm not ready to pee yet."
 
And you said, "I'm not ready to pee yet."

OMG, I burst out laughing when I read that. Thanks! I need a laugh today. :D

Why does everyone say that as if I'm asking them to date me or if I care whether they'd be poly or not?

I think it might be because some people relate to the world through their own lens of experience only. Everything is coming in through their senses and through this filter of "How does this apply to me? Does this apply to me?" Single POV.

They have a harder time seeing the world through many POVs -- it looks this way to me, could look that way to him, could look that way to her...

Galagirl
 
Why does everyone say that as if I'm asking them to date me or if I care whether they'd be poly or not? I wonder what they'd say to you if they said, "I'm going to the bathroom." And you said, "I'm not ready to pee yet."

Maybe, even though you are saying, "This is the relationship style that works best for me," they perceive you as saying, "This is the relationship style that works best"-- hearing judgment where you in fact aren't offering any.

Or they might wonder why you think it's their business, if you're not trying to date them. Over the course of coming out as bisexual, I had some conversations that involved either reassuring or gently discouraging people who thought that meant, "I want to have sex with everybody" or "I am inviting you to a threesome." (No. I just want you to know who I am.)
 
Why does everyone say that as if I'm asking them to date me or if I care whether they'd be poly or not? I wonder what they'd say to you if they said, "I'm going to the bathroom." And you said, "I'm not ready to pee yet."

I don't see that "I couldn't do that" response as anything but conversation. I've offered a piece of what I believe and they say that they don't believe that... isn't that just getting to know someone? They are simply relating what you just said to their life and offering you a piece of them in return.

When I have gotten that response in the past (and that's pretty much always the response) I ask them why that is... and a conversation doth ensue.
 
Back
Top