Polyamory and affairs

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by thunkybunny

Since we're back off-topic, what we have here is a difference not of opinions but rather a difference between relativism and strategy. Protectionism is a strategy of the weak, but it works well for the weak. Weaker relationships need protection while stronger ones do not because they can compete with outsiders. It's an interesting dilemma. How do you know your relationship is strong enough not to depend on protectionism to survive?
Furthermore, is survival enough?

Relativism:
any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.

(going with this definition hope its what you meant)
Strategy:a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result.

(this was all I could find-but I think the POINT holds through it)
Protectionism:
any program, policy, or system of laws that seeks to provide protection for property owners, wildlife, the environment, etc.


What I think you are saying... is that the difference of views here is more a matter of some people thinking in terms of relativism (you and possibly me at this point) and others thinking in terms of strategy (possibly RP/Mono and I didn't read further back so only using you two cause I know you two! cheating i know)...

Actually that makes sense to me-as Mono often talks about things in a very strategic way-which makes more sense in light of his background.

Strategy is a strong tool. BUT it can be weakened if you don't know the "enemy" so to speak. A good strategy depends on personal knowledge of not only YOUR goal, but also your "enemies" goal and their likely strategy.

Where as for me-I see each situation as being completely dependent on the circumstances... funny-I think this has identified one of the KEY issues in communication between Maca and I..... I dont' know how to explain it! Damn! That was mentally enlightening but I lack words.

So basically RP- you are (guessing no offense intended) looking at a potential problem and saying, this behavior will keep that potential from being damaging.

Whereas Thunk (again guessing no offense intended) is looking at it more as a... hmm IF that is a potential problem, what are the possible reasons? How might the problem be avoided by changing little details (versus making more rules)? Who has the power to impact it and in what ways?

He's (she's) painting it in a MUCH broader brush like painting a lighthouse with strict lines versus painting a "fuzzy" soft colored "basic idea of the area" that all blends together (yes I know there is a name for it, but I'm not an artist and don't know it)

Protectionism IS a strategy of/for the weak. It DOES work well for what it's intention is, but it is limiting as well.

Much like raising children, we are VERY protective and "controlling" of their every moment at first. But as they gain strength we let them fall sometimes-because it strengthens and teaches them.. ultimately because we want them to be able to independently survive...

Survival...
Is survival enough?

I say no. Some would say yes I suppose.
But I guess the FIRST step IS to survive. Is it maslow that has that pyramid of needs?
Anyway-you can't work on the upper aspects of the pyramid without having fulfilled the lower ones right?
So yes-survival IS ABSOLUTELY necessary. But once you have survival well in hand-there is so much further one can go....

so for me-no survival isn't enough-which was how I found this board in the first place! And I am SO happy that I did!!

[thunkybunny]

Pretty much, LR.
I'll add that survival includes the survival of individuals as well as survival of relationships.
That would be my rationale for relationship ethics.
Some so-called 'poly' folk think of relationships as casual/serious, and that casual relationships allow for cheating.
I would argue that relationships are ethical/unethical, and that cheating is unethical as it can kill.

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by thunkybunny

Protectionism is a strategy of the weak, but it works well for the weak.

This is an interesting opinion. It is also interesting that the most powerful countries in the world have very strong military forces. This is generally not to protect themselves but to protect their interests and citizens. Think families and children.

I'm not a scholar but have 20 years experience in the concept of protection. It is rarely exercised by the weak but more often practiced by the strong who shield the weak from harm until they are themselves capable of self protection. Think children.

So it is my opinion that the strongest of couples are the most capable of exercising protection but because they are so strong it becomes transparent.

I agree that the weak partnerships are the ones that flex thier muscles the most however. And people who need to flex their muscles often are often the least secure in their strength.

I might be misinterpreting your use of the word "protectionism". Can you explain it if that is the case?

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by thunkybunny

Some so-called 'poly' folk think of relationships as casual/serious, and that casual relationships allow for cheating.
I would argue that relationships are ethical/unethical, and that cheating is unethical as it can kill.

I agree that its either ethical/unethical and I agree that there is survival of people, relationships, thought patterns etc.

I am pro-ethical relationships. I don't have "casual" relationships.
Every person I meet (in my opinion) is a serious relationship, regardless of what level of intimacy we reach.

[thunkybunny]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

This is an interesting opinion. It is also interesting that the most powerful countries in the world have very strong military forces. This is generally not to protect themselves but to protect their interests and citizens. Think families and children.

I'm not a scholar but have 20 years experience in the concept of protection. It is rarely exercised by the weak but more often practiced by the strong who shield the weak from harm until they are themselves capable of self protection. Think children.

So it is my opinion that the strongest of couples are the most capable of exercising protection but because they are so strong it becomes transparent.

I agree that the weak partnerships are the ones that flex thier muscles the most however. And people who need to flex their muscles often are often the least secure in their strength.

I might be misinterpreting your use of the word "protectionism". Can you explain it if that is the case?

What you just mentioned sounds more like isolationism than protectionism.
Perhaps 'weak'ness is not as good a word as 'fearful' in isolationist relationships, but I covered that already. Bullies act out not due to weakness, but due to fear (which is the absence of confidence). So we're back to insecurities, but 'insecure' comes across as an insult even if it describes a situation accurately. How do you communicate that people are demonstrating insecurity without alienating them? How do you negotiate relationship agreements with them? Is it just best not to get involved with people who seem fearful?

[LovingRadiance]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

So it is my opinion that the strongest of couples are the most capable of exercising protection but because they are so strong it becomes transparent.

I agree that the weak partnerships are the ones that flex thier muscles the most however. And people who need to flex their muscles often are often the least secure in their strength.

ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
I like that.
This thread brought about some conversation last night and this concept was mulling around in my mind.
I am very confident in myself and don't ask for or feel a need for veto rules for example.
BUT I am also ULTRA protective of my loved ones (and these do include children) because they aren't so secure or strong....

I find this twist on the idea VERY interesting.

I have to add-I am really enjoying watching the back and forth of conversation between you two (mono/Thunky). I think you two would be VERY interesting to watch in a debate class!
The thoughts each of you express make sense and are clearly well thought out. That is always very cool to me.
(not to say anyone else's aren't and no offense intended!)

Please keep talking!

[LovingRadiance]

Maca has a lot of insecurities and can be very fearful in regards to relationships. I find it has been best to be honest, sometimes brutally so.
When I've been "gentle" he tends to be unaware that there is any reason to work on things-if I'm blunt, he feels trapped, BUT he starts looking for solutions-so in the big picture progress is made...........

[dragonsong]

Originally Posted by StitchwitchD

I'm curious about perspectives of people who have been cheated on in the context of a poly relationship.

The only situations I've heard about this happening were along the lines of Person A and Person B make a relationship agreement, when put in practice it works much better for A than B, B wants to renegotiate, A insists on sticking with the original agreement, B expresses frustration and unhappiness, A ignores B's attempts to communicate, B finally violates the agreement, A gets hurt and upset with B for cheating, and either leaves B, or uses the cheating and lack of trust to guilt B into agreeing to even stricter terms for their relationship.

This was my experience exactly and I played the part as the C - B's cheating partner. A and B were married for 6 years before the cheating began and the scenario played out exactly as you mentioned. It ended up in a divorce, broken hearts, and therapy for all of us.

Everyone, I would not recommend walking yourself into this scenario at any cost as it is destined to lead to negative consequences. If you can't come to an agreement that everyone respects and embraces upfront (and agree that this should be open to negotiation along the way), you're looking at disaster down the road. In my case, B accepted A's original interests because she loved him and was afraid that he would leave if she said no to his interests. After time, however, B felt angry that he wouldn't budge on any part of their agreement after a year. Failed talks and many other factors led to B's desperation and stubbornness and the eventual cheating.

If we did it all over again, I would have hoped that B would have been completely honest and upfront with A that what he was asking for was absolutely not in her interest, and then negotiated around that. As it was, B thought it was more appropriate to agree to the original negotiation without pushing for her desires, do whatever she pleased then and hide the ways that she broke that agreement from A, and hope that time would bring A around to the way that she was acting in secret.

In some ways it did happen that way, but things came out eventually - so much so that trust was nearly impossible to rebuild.

The truth almost always comes out. Cheating poisons the energy of a relationship, even if it is never uncovered. In my opinion, it is never worth it and I have vowed to avoid it at all costs.