Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-13-2010, 08:51 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

..And just to add my own point, which seems to be sooooo bad:

No need for basic equality - check
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-13-2010, 09:06 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,395
Default

If we're focusing on poly relationships, I think the only single difference with a mono relationship, as far the the general rules/foundations go, is that more than 2 people can be part of it. Doesn't mean they have to be, mind you, there might only be 2 partners at some point, but the relationship will still be "open" to more of them.

The rest, be it honesty, trust, fairness, communication... That's just part of relationships, not specific to poly relationships at all. That's the way I see it at least.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-13-2010, 09:16 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
I notice that you did not answer my question, but choose to go out on a tangent that I explicitly said was not my intention. So I'm not going to repeat it.
I am merely trying to establish a basis for the conversation, and trying to avoid it going down a futile path. If people are trying to come up with universally-upheld criteria, then I'm not going to bother. Been there, burned the t-shirt and all that. My purpose of answering the way I wanted (rather than the way you wanted) was to try to establish an understanding for me of the basis for the conversation and confirm before continuing.

If we are comparing notes as to what works for US, then sure, no problem.

I just want to make sure we're clear on that, before I continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
You seem to be, in a very general way, against the very idea of finding out whether there are some foundational things we could agree upon.
I'm sorry if I seem that way to you, but that is not true, as I have hopefully just shown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
Could you accept that such a question may be meaningful to some, and that maybe somebody might be content with answers that you personally don't like? Oh well, probably not.
Since you seem to want to answer the questions you ask me, I won't bother correcting you


Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
But just a small reminder, in some kind of faint hope:
I love to be reminded of things, especially when it's laced with condescension...

OK, since you are badgering me to answer your question, here it is:

Are the following, in my opinion and based on my experiences, fundamental and necessary criteria for poly:
love - yes
ability to love multiple - yes
trust/honesty - no
communication - no
my poly is not your poly - no
need for basic equality - no

Now, please note that I didn't say GOOD poly. But who am I to judge whether someone's poly is good or not, or to tell them they are not doing it properly? I have seen people in functioning poly relationships that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole where they weren't being honest with each other, open communication just wasn't there, and they were poly-evangelists and one-true-wayers.

Now, are they desirable in my opinion for my poly to work? Absolutely!

I get hung up on the idea of there having to be rules or criteria in order to make it "poly", so if you are seeing reticence on my part then it is because of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
If we're focusing on poly relationships, I think the only single difference with a mono relationship, as far the the general rules/foundations go, is that more than 2 people can be part of it. Doesn't mean they have to be, mind you, there might only be 2 partners at some point, but the relationship will still be "open" to more of them.
Yes (he says, pointing at the screen emphatically) THIS! THIS!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
The rest, be it honesty, trust, fairness, communication... That's just part of relationships, not specific to poly relationships at all. That's the way I see it at least.
Oh my THANK YOU for saying this.
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

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

Last edited by CielDuMatin; 05-13-2010 at 09:29 PM. Reason: merging posts.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-13-2010, 09:35 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
If we're focusing on poly relationships, I think the only single difference with a mono relationship, as far the the general rules/foundations go, is that more than 2 people can be part of it. Doesn't mean they have to be, mind you, there might only be 2 partners at some point, but the relationship will still be "open" to more of them.

The rest, be it honesty, trust, fairness, communication... That's just part of relationships, not specific to poly relationships at all. That's the way I see it at least.
I'm agreeing with you on this one ton. For me there seems like there is no need to add anything.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-13-2010, 11:39 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
What about classical double standards, like one-dick policy? Leaving symmetry out of the foundations would allow such things to be basic forms of polyamory, rather than arrangements agreed upon by equal partners.

I guess that we both agree that two (or more) persons can only join a polyamorous relationship on equal footings. But none of your other criteria necessarily imply this. That's why I think it belongs to the foundations. And, as a prerequisite, only there - any actual relationship must reflect the needs of the individuals involved, which may differ a lot. So, while symmetry in an actual relationship may make for better dynamics, it may not be attainable. Nor desirable. And if it is not in the foundation either, it may result in permanent, non-intended skewness of the whole contruction.
Symmetry is the wrong word. Not all poly relationships has symmetry. Some are unbalanced by the choice of the people involved. Some people live the OPP by choice...some live OVP...some people are permanent secondaries by choice. In all my reading, while symmetry looks good, it isn't a requirement
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-14-2010, 02:00 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariakas View Post
Symmetry is the wrong word. Not all poly relationships has symmetry. Some are unbalanced by the choice of the people involved. Some people live the OPP by choice...some live OVP...some people are permanent secondaries by choice. In all my reading, while symmetry looks good, it isn't a requirement
Sure - the "by choice" here is the central thing, and I must be very bad at expressing myself since you didn't get it - that the symmetry for me starts - AND ENDS - down in the foundation, that people can do things by choice, and they have equal rights of choosing there. As I have said, maybe it is all too obvious to mention, but I have seen enough examples where it is forgotten.

And - what I also think is important: People can choose again, if they want. That 24/7 slave contract you entered into may have been ideal for you for a long time, but then, some day, you may want something else..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-14-2010, 02:21 PM
capricorny capricorny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sub-ultima Thule
Posts: 65
Default It's OK for you, a contradiction in terms for me

Quote:
Originally Posted by CielDuMatin View Post
Are the following, in my opinion and based on my experiences, fundamental and necessary criteria for poly:
love - yes
ability to love multiple - yes
trust/honesty - no
communication - no
my poly is not your poly - no
need for basic equality - no

It's OK for you, a contradiction in terms for me.
"Love" without trust/honesty
"Love" without communication
etc
I just can't make it work.
And if this is a common understanding here, I think I'd better go somewhere else.

Either,
the term is kept for what you call "polyamory", and a new term is used for what is built upon this foundation,
or
another term is used for your concept, "emotional non-monogamy" I think would fit rather well, and "polyamory" is used for what we discuss here. I think the last option is most in line with the intentions of those who introduced the concept, and the common use.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-14-2010, 02:22 PM
Ariakas Ariakas is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
Sure - the "by choice" here is the central thing, and I must be very bad at expressing myself since you didn't get it - that the symmetry for me starts - AND ENDS - down in the foundation, that people can do things by choice, and they have equal rights of choosing there. As I have said, maybe it is all too obvious to mention, but I have seen enough examples where it is forgotten.

And - what I also think is important: People can choose again, if they want. That 24/7 slave contract you entered into may have been ideal for you for a long time, but then, some day, you may want something else..
Copy that, and in fact thats what I assume you mean. I would suggest, however, finding a different word. You want to build a foundation or rules so "other" people understand. Symmetry does not convey what you want it to...

I do believe we are on the same page, just in disagreement about verbiage
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-14-2010, 02:52 PM
CielDuMatin's Avatar
CielDuMatin CielDuMatin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capricorny View Post
It's OK for you, a contradiction in terms for me.
"Love" without trust/honesty
"Love" without communication
etc
I just can't make it work.
Fair enough - as I said before, neither can I. Doesn't make it a necessary condition, though, because you and I and a whole bunch of others don't see it that way.

Quote:
And if this is a common understanding here, I think I'd better go somewhere else.
I think that the common understanding here is that there are multiple views on this poly thing, and that we're not going to exclude people based on one person's, or a group's definition of it.

Quote:
Either,
the term is kept for what you call "polyamory", and a new term is used for what is built upon this foundation,
or
another term is used for your concept, "emotional non-monogamy" I think would fit rather well, and "polyamory" is used for what we discuss here. I think the last option is most in line with the intentions of those who introduced the concept, and the common use.
Polyamory means loving more than one person, beyond that it's all up for grabs. If your personal definition needs to narrow it down further, then that's perfectly legitimate for you, but that doesn't necessarily have to apply universally. I see people doing what they call polyamory that I couldn't have anywhere close to my life, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and it doesn't mean that it's not poly, as far as I'm concerned - it's just not my poly, which is fine - it's not my life, either.

Part of the ebb and flow in poly discussions is finding the people whose variety of poly is most akin to yours, where there are shared values and paradigms, because those are the ones with whom you have the most in common and who are in the best place to "get" where you care coming from. That doesn't make everyone else "not poly", though.

All of the criteria listed here are things that are best for any romantic relationship to work well, not just poly. As Tonberry said, the only difference is the number of people involved.

Edit to add:
Listen, I applaud people coming up with what they regard as necessary things to be in place to make their poly work. And the chances are that many here would agree. My caution and concern is that we not try to see it as some over-arching thing which alienates some folks who think differently, but are still poly by the basic definition. Part of the reason for forums like this is to provide people who feel excluded by society a safe place to come and talk about their polyness - having some sort of extra criteria may work to act against that goal. Does that makes sense?
__________________
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
http://www.thebirdcage.org/

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

Last edited by CielDuMatin; 05-14-2010 at 02:55 PM. Reason: Adding another thought.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-14-2010, 03:01 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,654
Default

Capricorny I'm hearing a tone of frustration and aggression in your posts and I'm wondering about it. Do you feel that the discussions you have been having here in some way threaten you? I am finding myself not wanting to engage in conversation with you because I don't want to irratate you further. I too didn't understand your post on symetry and thought perhaps I would wait to see if I was just unable to grasp a concept? Or that I was not the only one. I was afraid you would be sarcastic with me and frustrated as you seem to be with others on here and didn't want to engage because of it. I'm sorry if in some way you aren't getting your needs met. Perhaps you could explain why if you are ready to move on? Or, if you've had enough and don't choice to then I will respect that also. I ask because I understand this space a place to challenge my ideas about things in an emotionally safe environment . Perhaps you see it differently?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
best practices, boundaries, foundations, guidelines, mono, mono/poly, monogamous, monogamy, principles, rules

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 06:23 PM.