Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 03-10-2010, 11:50 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,510
Default

Ah, now my dear-don't go there!!!
No marginalization coming from me!!!

Dyslexia is just a reality-like me being ADD.
When someone makes their font "cursive like" and in one color, or doesn't use spaces for their paragraphs (or capital letters) it all just RUNS together for me.

So maybe I will be marginalized for being ADD?

You know I love you m'dear!!
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03-12-2010, 04:31 AM
ladyjools's Avatar
ladyjools ladyjools is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: scotland
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
This primary/secondary thing seems to have taken me a huge amount of time to understand. I think I get it now. This isn't about labels, this is about treatment. There is an immense difference between referring to someone descriptively as secondary and treating them as such. This is about treatment not labels. This is about treating people as commodities I think. That I get!
I may call myself a secondary within our relationship but I am certainly not treated as being secondary.

this is exactly how i see it mono and its why im so wary of using that label because i think its so often confused if i say secondary that someone would think that id treat the person as such.

For me there are only real people with real feelings needs and wants and not labels. Each relationship is important to me in diffrent ways.

Jools
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03-14-2010, 08:26 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
I wonder if that perception has more to do with who was writing the words rather than what was actually written. I wonder if some of that frustration and anger was assumed in the reading of it before it was read.
Those posts were my first introduction to "who was writing the words" so I can safely say that no, that was not the reason. I believe it had more to do with a lack of common ground to start from. And then it all turned ugly and mean, which made it damn near impossible to glean any real meaning from any of it. Furthermore, there were some participants in that thread whose opinions I had, until that point, greatly respected and valued. But after the nastiness started, I started wondering if I had made a mistake in my initial judgement...

When you're an expert on something, it's easy to forget that your audience is not experts and may not understand your terminology, especially if they have definitions from "another field" in their mind. I felt like a lot of the posts in the prescriptions thread were being spoken to an audience that had a common vocabulary, with definitions being assumed. But if I were to look up those terms on 10 different sites, I would get 11 different (and contradicting) definitions.

My best professors start from the assumption that we're all amateurs who don't know a damn thing but have a genuine desire to learn, and they give us every piece of background and vocabulary that we could possibly need to understand the material. They do this even when there's a pre-requisite for the class, because you can't guarantee that the guy teaching the pre-req did an adequate job. My good professors at least ask us if we covered the material in the pre-req, and then do a mini-review of the important points. Sometimes, if I'm familiar with what they're teaching, this stage can be a little dry, but I always understand its value and never suggest that they skip it, because maybe my classmates have a different background and may need those basic definitions.

Even within this single forum, never mind the community at large, there are so many definitions for so many terms that it's worthwhile to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator rather than assume your audience will understand things the way you do. If you're using poly terminology, it never hurts to explain what you mean by that term, and just saying "well I defined it in another thread" is not good enough because threads are independent. If you've clearly defined something in a previous post on another thread, take the 10 seconds to link that post so that we all know what you mean.
__________________
As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you,
someone else putting you in a box is entirely different
from getting into a box yourself.
—bisexualbaker

Last edited by SchrodingersCat; 03-14-2010 at 08:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03-14-2010, 08:36 AM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
When you're an expert on something, it's easy to forget that your audience is not experts and may not understand your terminology, especially if they have definitions from "another field" in their mind. I felt like a lot of the posts in the prescriptions thread were being spoken to an audience that had a common vocabulary, with definitions being assumed. But if I were to look up those terms on 10 different sites, I would get 11 different (and contradicting) definitions.
It's a two way street. Terminology can be explained (and was explained in the thread). However, in order for those explanations to be understood, it requires the other person to let go of their own pre-conceptions of what it means. Since in that particular thread, it was referring to a specific article where the terminology was defined and explained in that article and re-explained patiently multiple times in subsequent posts yet reactions were still based upon definitions that were different than those explanations, I think it's fair that some frustration arose from that.

How that frustration gets handled is another matter, but there's nothing wrong with being frustrated with the fact that it was explained multiple times yet still not listened to.

Tacit and Joreth were both in that podcast and were both speaking of the exact same things and many times used the exact same words that were posted in his article and in Joreth's subsequent replies on the thread about his article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
If you're using poly terminology, it never hurts to explain what you mean by that term, and just saying "well I defined it in another thread" is not good enough because threads are independent. If you've clearly defined something in a previous post on another thread, take the 10 seconds to link that post so that we all know what you mean.
And the terminology was explained as it was being used, multiple times within that very thread.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 03-14-2010, 09:09 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli View Post
It's a two way street. Terminology can be explained (and was explained in the thread). However, in order for those explanations to be understood, it requires the other person to let go of their own pre-conceptions of what it means.
Lol *freaky* I was just reading your other thread while this one had stewed in my brain for a few minutes, and I had exactly this same thought! I literally just came back to this thread to post that thought, only to find you had already done so...

What I was going to say was that it takes some time for our brains to readjust. So while you're completely right that those terms were defined, my brain hadn't adjusted to those definitions within the time it took to read the article and threads.

In scientific writing, there's a difference between "accurate" and "precise" ((Pi = 3 is accurate but not precise, Pi = 3.00283 is precise but not accurate, Pi = 3.14159 is accurate and precise)) but for every day usage, they mean pretty much the same thing and can usually be used interchangeably. I was only able to accept the difference by telling myself that I only had to think that way "for this class" but that I could resume my way of thinking after I wrote my exam. But once I understood and accepted their differing definitions, it was easy to apply them in the rest of my life, and they still stick with me.

I suppose it would be fair to ask that people refrain from posting until they've wrapped their heads around the idea. It's always been a challenge for me to hold my tongue when I feel like I have something worthwhile to say, but I'm trying to improve on that.
__________________
As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you,
someone else putting you in a box is entirely different
from getting into a box yourself.
—bisexualbaker
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 03-14-2010, 02:02 PM
NeonKaos NeonKaos is offline
Custodian
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: new england
Posts: 3,217
Default

I had the same thing happen with "accuracy" and "precision".

In English, when people mean "that is correct", they often say "precisely", which is... INcorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 03-14-2010, 05:55 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default What can we do ? (pri/secondary)

The whole primary/secondary discussion really dominates the whole poly lifestyle. It's been analyzed, micro analyzed etc and, at least for me, I think there are sufficient resources published in/on numerous sites, books etc so that at this point no one, be it primary or secondary, should need to be walking blindly into this.

But my question now seems to be - what can we all do as a community to keep an awareness of the tricky nature of this - and what responsibilities are there from each side ?

I'll just grab this quote from one of the threads .........

Quote:
Wording a new relationship as "entering OUR relationship" implies that the new person is of a second-class status. They are not "entering your relationship" they are "starting or having a relationship with you and/or whoever". That's the kind of language construction indicating the subconscious thought-process that leads to "prescriptive" expectations.
We talk much about the poor handling of the existing relationship (couple, triad, quad- whatever) in regards to the "new" entry. And without a doubt, handling this new entry has had more horror stories than success stories. To the point that a vast majority of solo people are reluctant to attempt it even if they can see some obvious advantages for themselves ! Bad news travels fast they say - and now that "news" seems prevalent.

But I feel it's a shared responsibility of all parties. Which means the new "entry" must (should) have some background, have some true empathy for the complexity of the model(s) and have a desire to put their "work" in also.

Because we all ARE "entering an existing (our) relationship" ! Even in a 2 person monogamous "entry". Even if you were stranded on an island alone when I washed up, I'm still entering your existing relationship to survival. And it's natural that it's going to take time and knowledge of me before you are going to be ready to share the locations of the coconut tree with me. There's certain chemical bias of self preservation (security, lifestyle, comfort etc) that exist in you as a human.
If I refuse to acknowledge that - or am ignorant of the fact - what reaction should I expect ?

A certain level of trust and desire must be built. And this takes some time - which can vary. I feel it's unfair for me to just climb out of the water and demand equal access to your coconut stash - as much as I might desire that !

So is it possible for us (as a group) to adopt a belief that we know we have an unlimited supply of coconuts, and we desire to share that. And as the newcomer, we understand that, in fact, we do have something to "prove" -if you will - and that we in turn have that desire and are willing to exert the reasonable effort and patience to become a unit under the tree.

Can we get past the finger pointing and blame casting and acknowledge that for the vast majority of "poly" people, this is new territory, new skills and that a certain degree of compassion, forgiveness and patience may be in order for all involved to build a better model. To speak out the hurt and fouls when they occur, but not allow ourselves to become biased and cynical. And spread that poison to the world around us.

I wonder...........
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 03-14-2010, 07:46 PM
Ceoli Ceoli is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
Because we all ARE "entering an existing (our) relationship" ! Even in a 2 person monogamous "entry". Even if you were stranded on an island alone when I washed up, I'm still entering your existing relationship to survival. And it's natural that it's going to take time and knowledge of me before you are going to be ready to share the locations of the coconut tree with me. There's certain chemical bias of self preservation (security, lifestyle, comfort etc) that exist in you as a human.
If I refuse to acknowledge that - or am ignorant of the fact - what reaction should I expect ?

A certain level of trust and desire must be built. And this takes some time - which can vary. I feel it's unfair for me to just climb out of the water and demand equal access to your coconut stash - as much as I might desire that !
*headdesk*

Why is it this argument continually brought up? The idea that a secondary wanting to have a say in their own relationship somehow equals demanding full equality in all household rights? Have you missed the other ten times where this was addressed? This is a strawman argument. Nobody is saying that a new partner entering a relationship with either a couple or a person with an existing partner should immediately be treated as equal to the other person. The issue that was raised was about setting pre-set artificial limits designed to hold one relationship down for the sake of the comfort of the other relationship. The idea is that the people carrying the most weight in a relationship should be the actual people *in* the relationship. That does not mean advocating disregarding the concerns of other people connected, it just means that there's nothing wrong with wanting to have an equal say with my partner about how *our* relationship develops.

Again, have you missed the other times this exact thing was addressed over and over again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
Can we get past the finger pointing and blame casting and acknowledge that for the vast majority of "poly" people, this is new territory, new skills and that a certain degree of compassion, forgiveness and patience may be in order for all involved to build a better model. To speak out the hurt and fouls when they occur, but not allow ourselves to become biased and cynical. And spread that poison to the world around us.

I wonder...........
That would be really fantastic. It would be very nice to be able to address the issues of hurt that certain types of generally accepted practices create without it being seen as an attack on someone's relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 03-14-2010, 10:46 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceoli:
headdesk
Is that head ON the desk - or under it ? <grin>

You missed the whole point. Or I am not clear ? One or the other.
There is NO argument ! This relates little or nothing to what has come before in this - or any other thread. I originally started it new but it was chosen to tag it on here which may be why a comment like this would boil forth. My reason for starting it new in the first place.

The post - and question - is not about the PAST !
It's about the current and the future !

In the past - wrongs have been done - lessons (hopefully) have been learned. We all know this.

The general consensus in a large percentage of the population- poly, mono, whatever is that "entering" an existing relationship is dangerous business indeed, to be avoided whenever possible.

How do we, as a community, overcome that stereotype ?
Or is it possible ?

Make sense now ?

GS
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 03-14-2010, 11:48 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundedSpirit View Post
The general consensus in a large percentage of the population- poly, mono, whatever is that "entering" an existing relationship is dangerous business indeed, to be avoided whenever possible.

How do we, as a community, overcome that stereotype ?
Or is it possible ?
I think that articles like Franklin's on the Secondary's Bill of Rights go a long way towards educating people joining in with one or both members of an existing relationship (and I hope I am wording that neutrally enough) in the sorts of things they need to think about and talk about so that they don't allow themselves to be doormats for the existing couple. There are other articles that he has written about it from the other perspective too. I have very often provided that as recommended reading on this forum and others when people have asked how to do this.

While I don't feel that it is to be avoided whenever possible, I think it's like buying a used car - you need to look at things very very carefully, and with a skeptical eye to make sure that everything is as it truly seems.

And we need places where people can come and ask advice, so that others who have been through the experience can provide resources for them so that they can all learn.
__________________

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

Tags
boyfriends, definitions, defintions, descriptions, equality, equanimity, family, girlfriends, hierarchy, importance, labeling, new dynamics, new relationships, poly singles, prescriptions, primaries, primary, primary/secondary, relationship dynamics, relationships, secondaries, secondary, terminology, unicorn

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:15 PM.