Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 10-10-2013, 02:27 PM
Murasaki's Avatar
Murasaki Murasaki is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 69
Default

There are a lot of unrealistic expectations out there. Having unrealistic expectations can be reduced by communication. If the people with expectations on each other don’t talk about the changes that can or will happen when they start dating then problems ensue.

However couples, or established relationships are not the only ones who exhibit unrealistic expectations. Is it realistic as a single person dating a married with kids to get married to thier SO in that couple? In some ways it is unrealistic, in others it is not. Kuroi and I are willing to set up our life in such a way that that could happen, however that isn’t something that comes easily, or quickly. A divorce is no joke, and Kuroi and I are in agreement that we do not want a divorce while we are co-parenting. This could always change at some point, something could happen that make divorce the best option for us, however a new person should not be pushing us to divorce so they can get married to one of us. There are other options, they don’t come with the same financial, benefits, or public recognition. I understand and recognize that, however there are ceremonies that can be just as binding to the two people within those ceremonies if they so chose.

Quote:
Any rules that are designed to make sure that the people in the relationship maintain their responsibilities - this to me signifies distrust, more than anything. If a guy that I was planning to date has rules set by his wife to ensure that he spends enough time with his kids, it puts me off of him. Why doesn't he naturally want to spend time with his kids? Why doesn't she trust that he will put his kids before his love life? What kind of guy is he?
Here's a senerio for you:

A couple open their relationship to love other people (POLY). One of them finds a match and starts dating. Then experiences NRE, and becomes NRE blind towards their pre-existing partnership. They drop the ball in some way that damages the pre-existing relationship. NRE fades, and things level out some, but one person in this V is hurt, and distrustful. The hinge wants to correct the wrongs that have been done, and the pre-existing partner wants to work it out. So the “burned” partner “creates” some rules to attempt to protect them self from what ever happen. Instead of finding out “why” their rule exists you’ll walk away?

I would ask some pointed, and leading questions. Find out why what ever rule I don't like, or don't agree with is in place. Find out if this rule is expected to be permanent, or temporary. If temporary I would then want to know when it could be looked at to see about relaxing it, or dropping it all together. Do they have a set time period to "try" the rule out? A set date/amount of time before bringing this rule up for re-negotiation?

Depending on these answers I would then have to decide if I was ok with the rule and for how long I am willing to give the people involved to work out their issue and relax/drop the rule. I don't expect perfection. I do expect cooperation, understanding, reasonable flexibility, and the ability to negotiate.
__________________
Me - Murasaki - Bi/pan
LTR SO - Kuroi - Straight (to complicated to have a current title)
Child of Murasaki & Kuroi - Momoiroi

Kimidori - Kuroi's other primary

In LTR of 22 years, married for 14 years to Kuroi
Didn't realize we had a poly type relationship in High school. Exploring poly again now that our Child is older.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-10-2013, 03:16 PM
WhatHappened WhatHappened is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 632
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post

What you are dismissing is the fact that it may "work for them" because "a person or a couple has issues". If you acknowledge that your partner is very insecure and has trust issues....
You always have such a delightfully diplomatic way of putting things.

What you are missing, is that, the fact you disagree with a way of doing things or a couple's rules, does not mean either of them has 'issues' or insecurity or trust issues.

I, too, would not be involved for long with someone in the situations you describe. But I see why parents, especially, might do so, and feel no need to cast character aspersions on them.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-10-2013, 09:09 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,210
Default

As things seem to me to be heating up a bit and misunderstandings may be in the air, let me try to make a few salient observations.
  • Historically, couple privelage is the most common problem to crop up in a "unicorn" situation.
  • However, there can be such a thing as "unicorn" privelage, with the "unmarried newcomer" using NRE to leverage one or both married partners.
  • In any triad situation, it's up to all three people to make sure they are giving each other fair say in deciding the "rules," "agreements," or whatever they ought to be called.
To summarize: I'm not in favor of any kind of "privilege." A poly unit is supposed to be a cooperating group, not a competing group. As soon as one person becomes a "threat" to another person, competing rules and injured feelings are on the way.

This isn't to say that there aren't reasonable expectations to be had about what will happen to any kids in the family, etc.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"

Last edited by kdt26417; 10-11-2013 at 04:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-10-2013, 11:18 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,503
Default

KDT-yes yes and yes.

But-I would add.

There is also nothing wrong with people setting agreements for their current configuration.
Just because there are only three of us now-and we are open to others, doesn't mean we can't create agreements that work for the three of us NOW.

Of course-if another person joins, things WILL change. If one of us leaves things will change too.

BUT-the fact that potential person doesn't exist, doesn't mean we shouldn't be free to create agreements for what works for us now.

Another thought is-that because one person in a group says "this is our agreement";
that doesn't mean a different partner is holding a "rule" over them.

We have an agreement regarding our individual commitments to the kids. But it's not a rule one or another of us has placed upon another. It is an agreement we made as coparents.
Our coparent agreements do not require the participation of any other sexual partner. They aren't co-parents.

It's much like a business agreement.
We agreed to a set of responsibilities each of us has before agreeing to raise children together.
This is a business agreement between us that we are each responsible for upholding.
It impacts potential lovers-but it isn't negotiable by them.
That isn't "couple privilege" any more than having a work schedule is "work privilege".
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-11-2013, 01:06 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,210
Default

Ahem ... perhaps we could call it "parent privilege?"

In any case, I am in agreement with what you said. The only exception would be a scenario something like, a married couple pairs up with a HBB and then says, "Now you babysit our kids for us. That's part of the new rules you have to follow." Like you said, the kids are the making and dependants of the original couple and as such, are that couple's responsibility (i.e., the responsibility is non-transferrable).

But the same said couple would have every right to tell the HBB, "Our kids need a certain amount of time and attention from us and we intend to provide them that, even though we hope we'll also meet your basic needs."

Re:
Quote:
"Of course -- if another person joins, things *will* change. If one of us leaves things will change too. *But* -- the fact that potential person doesn't exist, doesn't mean we shouldn't be free to create agreements for what works for us now."
Okay, I think what you're saying is, as long as another person could join your poly group, but you haven't met that person yet, they remain a hypothetical person (who may or may not exist) and that's all you have to work with at this moment. You can't negotiate with a hypothetical person, so until you meet this person, you have to come to your agreements with the people you already have in your group.

And you might also be saying that no harm is done in being prepared ahead of time for the addition of such a hypothetical person? Like, you can speculate that, "These are the agreements that seem to us would be fair to anyone new who might join our group," and then if someone new does join your group, you can certainly tell them, "These are some things we agreed to before we met you. How do you feel about those agreements, and would you like us to make any revisions?"

Which is a little different than some "entitled couple" telling their newcomer HBB, "Hey, these are the rules we figured out would be best for everyone. We're sure you'll agree, and expect you to abide by the rules." So there's a difference between being prepared ahead of time, and between being inflexible about your expectations.

Perhaps I am inadvertently adding to what you were trying to say with all my speculations, but hopefully I'm not too far off track.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-11-2013, 02:21 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,503
Default

You are pretty right on track. I woukdnt limit parenting to a couple-because, for example, in our case parenting was negotiated as a group of three before poly. Our parenting agreement is three adults. Not two. But the point is the same. All responsibility falls on the group who entered the agreement and that isnt transferrable.
So if some bew party entered the dynamic they cant be held accountable either to join the parenting agreement or take on any of the duties of that agreement.

As for the hypothetical-its twofold.
Because it isnt couple privilege (or triad privilege) to have agrremembta in place. It only becomes that if it is held over a new person when they exist.

Much like; my oldest child was an only child for 6 years. It isnt "parent-child privilege" that she got x amt of one on one attention.
There were no other children.
At the point there were other children then and only then was there a need to consider their needs also.
Even while hypothetically discussing having more children, it was not necessary to plan for hiw much time each child would get, only to acknowledge that it would change. Because the "how" of the changes woukd be impossible to calculate in advance.

Likewise: a new partners needs and desires cant be calculated in advance. But-what I have to offer can. I do not have 100% or even 50% to offer. Save them time by setting that out there up front. I cant offer unlimited time and I cant offer dependably uninterruoted time.
Saying so isnt couole privikege. Its prior responsibility uPheld. Not saying it upfront doesnt change the reality-it only increases the chances of someone who wants and expects that, getting hurt.

There seems a big push that stating limitations upfront is somehow allowing or promoting couole privilege and i think this is erroneous. Not stating thise limits may remove the appearance of having prior responsibilities. But they still exist. So realky, waiting to "negotiate" non negotiables is just lying and leadin people on. Wastes their time and mine.

On the otherhand-the assumption that my assertations of limited availability are couple (or V) privilege is also a lie. It actually has little to do with privilege and everything to do with responsibikity.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-11-2013, 04:07 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 7,210
Default

Oh right, if three people enter into an agreement to co-parent a child (or children), then they have that shared responsibility and the same principles apply as if it were just a dyad with a child.

I see your point that everyone will have their "non-negotiables" that they enter into a new relationship with. If you've already committed certain time and attention to your partners, you can't suddenly change that at least not without their permission (and compatibility with your own conscience). I guess that's a weak example, though, since if you start with three adults and then add a fourth adult, you obviously want to be fair and "redistribute the schedule" to accomodate the new person.

But I get it; if you have responsibilities, you have responsibilities; can't just throw them aside because a newcomer wants more. Maybe it's kids you're responsible for, maybe it's your job, most likely it's a combination of things. You're not trying to short your new partner, you're just saving the time and resources you have to save for other things (as determined by your own good conscience).

And obviously, if you can't negotiate on a certain point, it's only fair and sensible to inform your new partner of that fact. As long as you let them know early in the game, then no harm is done because they can still walk away without a whole lot of heartache. The disservice would be to pretend there's no non-negotiables until your new partner is so emotionally invested that they can't walk away without seriously hurting themselves (and you as well).

I suppose what "we" (we collectively) could argue about is what constitutes a reasonable cause for non-negotiability. But none of this is really a poly-related issue. Traditional couples come together with non-negotiable conditions as well. As a single individual, long before I hook up with anyone, I have a responsibility to myself to decide what I can and can't do without violating my principles. These decisions that I make will have already been made before I even meet the person I'm going to marry. A good marriage (or actually, any marriage that can work at all) is one in which the two partners have already informed each other of their hard limits, and found that they're still compatible without having to change those limits. So in a monogamous marriage, I guess you could call that "individual privilege" if you wanted, although it's better described as "personal conscience."

Perhaps the universal truth for this whole thread is that you need to discuss conditions and agreements as early in the relationship as possible. That way, whether it can be negotiated or can't, both (or however many) people can make an informed decision about whether to stay or leave before anyone gets hurt. So, if you want to be the classic "unicorn hunter" couple, go ahead and do so, just make sure your new potential HBB partner knows what she's getting into before she gets into it. Likewise, this "HBB" is responsible to tell you ahead of time what her conditions and limits are.

Other questions to address might be, What if one doesn't know what one wants ahead of time, or, What if one thinks one knows but then changes his/her mind in the middle of the relationship? Shoot, I was in the midst of a monogamous marriage when I decided I wanted to add a polyamorous relationship to the mix. What could I do? I approached my wife as humbly as I could, and asked if she would consider it. Which amazingly, she did.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-11-2013, 05:26 AM
JaneQSmythe JaneQSmythe is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
To summarize: I'm not in favor of any kind of "privilege." A poly unit is supposed to be a cooperating group, not a competing group. As soon as one person becomes a "threat" to another person, competing rules and injured feelings are on the way.

This isn't to say that there aren't reasonable expectations to be had about what will happen to any kids in the family, etc.

While I agree whole-heartedly, I'm kind of interested as to how far this extends...

For instance, Dude is dating this new girl, Lotus. We are all interested in seeing how this proceeds (including her husband). At the same time we are all interested in her in our own right as well...as friends or FWBs or more (she is seriously that awesomely wonderful and interesting). She says that she feels she is tentatively dating me and MrS "via Dude"

We have no "rules" about metamours dating (we don't really have many "rules" about anything)...but we are all aware that the Dude<-->Lotus connection is the main attraction at the circus at this point, and are able/willing to foster this (giving them time alone, not getting upset about time away, etc.) If other relationships manifest in the wash of that, great, if they don't...we have a new friend. No harm, no foul.

That being said. Dude DOES have responsibilities to me and MrS - as lover and friend (and roommmate). If those responsibilities are neglected (for whatever reason...not necessarily Lotus), then that would affect OUR relationships.

Just thinking out loud...

JaneQ
__________________
Me: poly bi female, in an "open-but-not-looking" Vee-plus with -
MrS: hetero polyflexible male, live-in husband (23+ yrs)
Dude: hetero poly male, live-in boyfriend (4+ yrs) and MrS's best friend
Lotus: poly bi married female, "it's complicated" relationships with Dude/JaneQ/MrS (1+ years)
+ "others" = FBs, FWBs, lover-friends, platonic G/BFs, boytoys, etc.


My poly blogs here:
The Journey of JaneQSmythe
The Notebook of JaneQSmythe
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-11-2013, 08:44 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

Quote:
Who says its a “rule” that restricts WHEN a date can take place? Maybe it’s more about time management then any rule. In my relationship it’s time management. I may WANT weekends with Kuroi because that is the time I have available. Does that mean Kuroi is obligated to give me that? Or is it just that Kuroi NEEDS to take my requests into consideration when making plans with someone else?
That's up to Kuroi to handle. See, if I knew that the only quality time I can really get with an existing partner is on weekends, I wouldn't build a relationship with someone who I could also only see on weekends because I have my existing relationship(s) to maintain. That's me taking care of my obligations, responsibilities etc.

Quote:
A couple open their relationship to love other people (POLY). One of them finds a match and starts dating. Then experiences NRE, and becomes NRE blind towards their pre-existing partnership. They drop the ball in some way that damages the pre-existing relationship. NRE fades, and things level out some, but one person in this V is hurt, and distrustful. The hinge wants to correct the wrongs that have been done, and the pre-existing partner wants to work it out. So the “burned” partner “creates” some rules to attempt to protect them self from what ever happen. Instead of finding out “why” their rule exists you’ll walk away?
Straight away. I really don't have time for people with relationship issues to be messing with my mojo. You're either ready for this or you're not. Control and trust issues mean you aren't. In my most humble opinion, of course.

Quote:
Then experiences NRE, and becomes NRE blind towards their pre-existing partnership.
That to me isn't about NRE, it's about not being able to ethically maintain your relationships. Someone without the ability to do this is of no interest to me. If I knew a potential partner habitually did this when they start a new relationship, I simply wouldn't be interested in them. Them mistreating their partner doesn't really affect me, however, they may expect me to do the same with my existing partners and/or do the same to me when they meet someone new down the line.

Quote:
I would ask some pointed, and leading questions. Find out why what ever rule I don't like, or don't agree with is in place. Find out if this rule is expected to be permanent, or temporary. If temporary I would then want to know when it could be looked at to see about relaxing it, or dropping it all together. Do they have a set time period to "try" the rule out? A set date/amount of time before bringing this rule up for re-negotiation?
See, that's couple privilege. That's saying that my relationship with this guy moves at the pace his marriage is ready for. That might be cool with some people, but not me. That's why I wouldn't ever get with someone who isn't on the same page as their spouse. I'm just not interested in allowing other people's relationships to dictate my own. I'm not interested in their issues becoming my issues and feeling "wobbly" because they might (want to) pull the plug at any time. Not interested.

Quote:
What you are missing, is that, the fact you disagree with a way of doing things or a couple's rules, does not mean either of them has 'issues' or insecurity or trust issues.

These are examples of when I would say there are issues:

"All dates must take place in the home unless permission has been granted for a different location because I don't want to be left holding the baby all the time." Mistrust:This says to me that spouse 1 cannot trust spouse 2 to fulfill parenting obligations

"I need input into how, when and who you date so I can make sure you don't get caught up in NRE" Mistrust: This says to me that spouse 1 cannot trust spouse 2 to maintain their relationship in the absence of monogamy

This is when I would say it's just personal taste, sort of thing:

"We always tell one another as soon as we start speaking to someone we like, so we the first date doesn't come out of the blue"

Quote:
Which is a little different than some "entitled couple" telling their newcomer HBB, "Hey, these are the rules we figured out would be best for everyone. We're sure you'll agree, and expect you to abide by the rules." So there's a difference between being prepared ahead of time, and between being inflexible about your expectations.
This is what I see.

Not this:

Quote:
But the same said couple would have every right to tell the HBB, "Our kids need a certain amount of time and attention from us and we intend to provide them that, even though we hope we'll also meet your basic needs."
It's more like "the majority of your allocated quality time will take place with our families". That will meet your needs or else. That to me comes back to:

Quote:
"All dates must take place in the home unless permission has been granted for a different location because I don't want to be left holding the baby all the time."
Which makes me ask why this person isn't trusted to keep up with their parenting duties or whether it's because the potential metamour likes to feel in control of their spouses other relationships. Both are no no's for me. As I said before, I just totally reject the idea of all parents having to be with their kids every second of their spare time for it to count and I think this idea is often used as a manipulation tool. Not just in poly situations, but as a way of one co-parent controlling the other co-parent and restricting their time away from the family unit by way of emotional blackmail. again, usually because of trust issues and/or insecurity. These are not situations I want to be involved in on any level.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-11-2013, 04:52 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 1,340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneQSmythe View Post
That being said. Dude DOES have responsibilities to me and MrS - as lover and friend (and roommmate). If those responsibilities are neglected (for whatever reason...not necessarily Lotus), then that would affect OUR relationships.
This made me give some thought to what I consider to be a "responsibility". Paying my share of the bills or following through with an explicit agreement (take you to work on Tuesdays, pick up little Timmy from school on Fridays, etc). I can't think of what else would even come close to a responsibility when it comes to friends and lovers.

What would you consider a responsibility when it comes to the actions of Dude?
__________________
Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
couple privilege, privilege, responsibility

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 08:18 PM.