complicated arguments...

[Ariakas]

Originally Posted by rpcrazy

someone SHOULD write a poly handbook. In my personal experience, explaining this poly side of me, is that talking about why the world is round 100's of years ago. If someone could write CWG-like book about polyamory, it'd be alot easier hahaha.

hmmm...not to be the devils advocate...but let me play the role...my poly is not your poly and yours is not someone elses. To explain the pure basic of it

loving multiple people

is easy...but past that, I haven't found many like myself. Nor my wife....past that, RP (sorry just using her as a descriptive example) is different than others etc. Poly, unless you are willing to fall inline with a specific docturine does not apply to everyone. Find solace in how you see it happening for you...and work with that. Understand the basics of it and build your foundation, ideally with following some guidelines that may help you

All that said, and the reason I said it, that handbook would be huge...eastern philosophy...hippy...pagan...non-monogamists who found love....ethical sluts...etc...

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by rpcrazy

Well of course i'd let her set the rules!!! hahah. But I completely dis-agree with your "weakest-link" theory. Naturally, the most insecure person is the person who is going to try and set the rules. Because rules make life safe, and that's why insecure people need them. While, i don't think that's fair, it's inevitable really...there's no way around it in a loving and understanding relationship. However I don't agree to your notion that automatic contention is what's right and just. It's the DUTY of the insecure to become more security with their reality, just as much as it the DUTY of the stronger link to be just that, a strong link and support to the lesser. I pride myself in my ability to change, and be versatile to all obstacles in life, and i expect no less from others. To remain stagnant is to beckon death.

K, can I just say here... for the record, as I seem to have created this poly rule unknowingly, that I made that assumption way back last year, that the weakest link would be willing to rise to the occasion and move forward. I was referring to Nerdist when I said it and he did and has risen to the occasion and we no longer have issues regarding his fear of what is happening in our family and relationship. Just as I don't have any NRE with poly or Mono anymore. A smidge with Derby though... still, the course is set and it's far easier this time around. We are already a poly family and the change has occurred.

I think you are right rpcrazy, it is important that when "the one who is struggling the most," as I now say instead as I don't like the term "weakest," is creating boundaries because they are scared in uncharted territories, that they realize that they are temporary. They need to realize that boundaries need to be fluid... the one that is barreling forward needs to realize that too and be patient, extra loving in their words and actions and both need to take breaks to catch their breath from being fearful and, on the flip side, being in NRE with another or poly itself.

[capricorny]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

Where do these come from and who created them? There are no Poly experts to my knowledge, no people who own the term or define it with any authority. There are some zealous poly theorists and people who express how poly should be based on limited life experiences and feel their interpretation is the right one (But for the most part they are easily identified and dismissed).

I think I took this comment out of context and apologize if I did my friend. It happens

No rules, no game.

If there are no rules at all, how can you tell polyamory from anything else?

How can you explain that non-monogamous child abusers are not "polyamorous"? (AAO, Friedrichshof) OK, polyamorists are subject to ordinary moral rules, mostly. There you have one, thugh very incomplete .

And how, then about polygamy, Arabian style?

And if the basic rule is that you are not allowed to make ANY rules in the name of polyamory, as seems to be the case for many here, then you surely
have a rule. An extremely strict one, too. So that lots of non-monogamous people can not live with it. Including me.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by capricorny

No rules, no game.

If there are no rules at all, how can you tell polyamory from anything else?

How can you explain that non-monogamous child abusers are not "polyamorous"? (AAO, Friedrichshof) OK, polyamorists are subject to ordinary moral rules, mostly. There you have one, thugh very incomplete .

And how, then about polygamy, Arabian style?

And if the basic rule is that you are not allowed to make ANY rules in the name of polyamory, as seems to be the case for many here, then you surely
have a rule. An extremely strict one, too. So that lots of non-monogamous people can not live with it. Including me.

I'm sorry, my life is not a game. I have my own description of my polyamorous life, but I don't follow anyone elses rules except my own. Other peoples idea are interesting and I use them to mould my own path, but I don't hold them as law.

The only foundation of poly that I can think of, and I think *foundation* IS the word to describe it, is that poly is based on open communication, empathy, mutual respect, love, caring, self confidence and honesty.

This is not unique to poly, but any solid relationship. That doesn't make it a rule, but the foundation to a good relationship.

Perhaps a new thread is in order cap?

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by redpepper

The only foundation of poly that I can think of, and I think *foundation* IS the word to describe it, is that poly is based on open communication, empathy, mutual respect, love, caring, self confidence and honesty.

I agree. Outside of these attributes I don't see anything or any one who actually has any qualifications or moral authority to say what poly is or isn't. We all have our opinions but that is as far as those go.

Some one can have the longest blog and most extensive wbsite in the world and it still gives them zero ability to shape what polyamory is about except for how it relates to thier own life. Sharing of experiences and concepts is a very appreciated and beneficial thing to do and many people do this luckily. Some put generous amounts of time and energy into this endeavor. But that's as far as any one individual can take the idea of poly. To claim otherwise makes that individual look like a pretencious ass with very un-poly control issues.

Therefore the idea of rules is completely without merit in my opinion. But that is my opinion and has no authority beyond my own life.

[capricorny]

Originally Posted by redpepper

The only foundation of poly that I can think of, and I think *foundation* IS the word to describe it, is that poly is based on open communication, empathy, mutual respect, love, caring, self confidence and honesty.

This is not unique to poly, but any solid relationship. That doesn't make it a rule, but the foundation to a good relationship.

There you are. Foundation. Principles. To me, it is a bit of hair-splitting to insist on the principal differerence between basic principles and rules. Because if this foundation isn't in fact built upon, i.e. the principles given any power, we talk about intentions, not a foundation. And when the principles are given power, for instance I stick to communication in a situation where I might have been inclined to do something else, what then is the difference between a principle, foundation, and an (internalized) rule?

Rules come in all flavors. Some could be considered more restrictive, like the law of Moses, some more enabling, like grammar rules for communication.

And re games: Don't all forms of communication and interaction have an aspect of game to them? That your life has an aspect of game to it, doesn't make it a game. And if your life has no aspect of game to it whatsoever, I really wonder what it looks like

[rpcrazy]

the rule issue is complicated.
Here is something my girlfriend said to me today...
"YOU JUST WANT TO FUCK EVERYONE!"

...is that true? no.

But like, I can't really say that's not true, because of the no rule logic of poly. She's met poly people who have literally said to her, "i HATE monogamy, and i don't feeling confined to having sex with one person". I mean, I can say I am not like that, but if associate myself with this title "poly", than the definition of my title exceeds my own relative definition.

I sort of WISH there was the loving wonderful definition and set of rules to poly, that get rid of logic like my g/f's...
Something you can just say, and bam...proof that i'm not some irresponsible whore. This is what it is, what is why it's awesome.

[Ariakas]

Again its simply understanding what you want. If you could only answer that with a NO...then maybe you need to reflect the why you are poly part.

And really, if its JUST a sex thing for you, you are a swinger...nothing wrong with that...but lets call a spade a spade (ps you can be a swinger AND poly...)

Take ownership of what poly means to you...and create your own definition, but allow it room to evolve. In my relationship my wife and I are open...bordering on swingers but not nearly that random...we are also poly because we know we can love other people. I am not walking around looking for everyone to love...I am also not walking around humping everyones leg.

Something you can just say, and bam...proof that i'm not some irresponsible whore. This is what it is, what is why it's awesome.

Ask her to read this site...have her read xeromags musings on poly...have her read the ethical slut AND opening up. Hopefully, since you are in this, she will take an interest and want to know more. With all 4 tools she might have a better grasp of what poly is and isn't.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by capricorny

There you are. Foundation. Principles. To me, it is a bit of hair-splitting to insist on the principal differerence between basic principles and rules. Because if this foundation isn't in fact built upon, i.e. the principles given any power, we talk about intentions, not a foundation. And when the principles are given power, for instance I stick to communication in a situation where I might have been inclined to do something else, what then is the difference between a principle, foundation, and an (internalized) rule?

Rules come in all flavors. Some could be considered more restrictive, like the law of Moses, some more enabling, like grammar rules for communication.

And re games: Don't all forms of communication and interaction have an aspect of game to them? That your life has an aspect of game to it, doesn't make it a game. And if your life has no aspect of game to it whatsoever, I really wonder what it looks like

I moved this discussion to another thread (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showt...9205#post29205) so as to continue with the topic at hand on this thread... excuse us rpcrazy, while there was some relevance to the discussion it became evident that more could be discussed in greater detail... thanks for baring with us.