Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 07-20-2014, 03:15 PM
hyperskeptic's Avatar
hyperskeptic hyperskeptic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
I haven't read up on RA myself, other than what I've read here, but are you saying that honesty is a basic tenet of RA?
I haven't done much further reading on RA, myself - I have too many other things to read! - but, based on what I've seen up to this point, I think it wouldn't be quite right to say honesty is a "basic tenet" or a "core value".

It's deeper than that.

If RA is about two individuals negotiating the terms of their own relationship without following any particular script made available by the society (e.g., romance, "the friend zone", etc.), then honesty strikes me as just one of the conditions on which negotiation - in any meaningful sense - is possible.

On that score, RA strikes me as beautifully optimistic: individuals can, without any sort of external social control or guidance, work out the terms of their own relationships . . . so long as the negotiation is done in good faith, on a basis of honesty, reciprocity and consent.

It's bottom-up social organization, one dyad at a time.

And, as I say, it's beautifully optimistic.
__________________

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

"Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-20-2014, 04:35 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 nycindie View Post
I am curious about something - how do Relationship Anarchists regard cheating, for the most part?
Monogamy: I generally reduce this to "romantic and sexual exclusivity clause"
Polyamory: I generally reduce to "potential for multiple partners, and sometimes lacking a romantic and sexual exclusivity clause"
Relationship Anarchy: I might define as "live a genuine life and completely disregard any relationship trappings which don't apply to you"

I think someone trying to be a proper Relationship Anarchist is using their time about as constructively as someone hopping in a row boat and casting off to find the land of Asgard. Anarchy is a philosophy regarding self-regulation which is (rightfully) poorly defined and anyone who actually claims to be able to answer the question nycindie asked is full of shit
__________________
Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-20-2014, 04:39 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 hyperskeptic View Post
RA strikes me as beautifully optimistic: individuals can, without any sort of external social control or guidance, work out the terms of their own relationships . . . so long as the negotiation is done in good faith, on a basis of honesty, reciprocity and consent.
That's as good a description of an anarchistic ideal as I've ever seen.
__________________
Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-06-2015, 04:50 AM
bookbug bookbug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 757
Default

Re: the question of cheating. What if the relationship were set up so there was no way to cheat? What do I mean?

The Philosopher came to me one day and said, "I've always viewed the idea of trust as requiring full disclosure. But if I truly trust you, why would I require full disclosure? I trust you to make sound decisions, to manage your life outside of our relationship however you see fit. If you take on a new lover, you are not required to tell me unless you want to. That's trust."
__________________
-Me: 51, female, relationship anarchist
-The Philosopher: semi-LDR, 44, male - my intellectual twin; relationship anarchist.
-Intellectual Elf, 27, female, the Philosopher's LDR
-Polkadot, 36, dating the Philosopher
-Wiseman, 68, male, solo-poly, my budding LDR
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-06-2015, 05:21 PM
HappilyFallenAngel's Avatar
HappilyFallenAngel HappilyFallenAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bookbug View Post
The Philosopher came to me one day and said, "I've always viewed the idea of trust as requiring full disclosure. But if I truly trust you, why would I require full disclosure? I trust you to make sound decisions, to manage your life outside of our relationship however you see fit. If you take on a new lover, you are not required to tell me unless you want to. That's trust."
I love this, bookbug. Having a list of relationship rules doesn't appeal to me one bit and Philospher's quote up there pretty much says all I need, not just pertaining to trust but to being with someone in general.

"I trust you to make sound decisions, to manage your life outside of our relationship however you see fit."
__________________
~ Karen
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-07-2015, 03:56 AM
MusicalRose's Avatar
MusicalRose MusicalRose is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 346
Default

The only thing that really makes me uncomfortable on that level is stuff having to do with sexual safety in someone I'm fluid bonded with, especially if we do establish that we have different levels of comfort.

Having the full disclosure there means that I can make decisions about how comfortable I feel with a given level of contact, although in a longer term and very trust built relationship, I can see where it might not always be explicitly necessary. I feel divided on this one area in particular. With anything else, yeah, I don't require my partner to disclose what all they are doing with another person (although my compersive self does like to hear it if they're willing :-)).
__________________
Me: Female, pansexual, polyamorous, relationship anarchist
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-07-2015, 05:15 AM
A2Poly's Avatar
A2Poly A2Poly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 203
Default

Our agreement is to tell each other anything that will effect the other one.

So safe sex with a FWB/hook up isn't on that list. He can tell me if he wants to, but doesn't have to (and vice versa). If a condom breaks or the choice is made not to use one then that effects me so he'd need to tell me or I'd have to tell him if I did the same.

But once feelings get involved, be it before or after the sexual relationship has started... well that affects me because he'll be wanting to stretch his already stretched time to handle another relationship. And since that will affect my time with him he'd need to tell me. I doubt I'd be in that situation soon (feeling poly-saturated with just the one relationship), but if I was the same would hold for me.

So it's "full disclosure" of anything that might effect me, but not of everything. I think this works for us.... but only because I've known him half my adult life and trust him completely.
__________________
Me: f(43) never married
Djinn: f(42) my BFF (30yrs), married to Mal (15yrs)
Mal: m(42) my partner, LDR (7m)
Billie: f(20) my daughter
The Kids: Djinn and Mal's children f(11) and m(6)
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-07-2015, 01:22 PM
bookbug bookbug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 757
Default

Glad to meet a kindred spirit, Karen!

As for safe sex, we trust one another to confide any issues that were to affect health. But we would each do this because it is the ethical thing to do, not because of a rule.

As for compersion, MusicalRose, we both experience it, and so not telling is probably not an option either of us would ever invoke.

I think the point the Philosopher was trying to make in the bigger scheme of things is that rules do not replace trust - and yet time and again we have seen on this forum rules put in place designed to make the participants feel safe, only to see the rules broken (often because they deny the natural progression of feelings) further eroding trust the rules were supposed to protect.
__________________
-Me: 51, female, relationship anarchist
-The Philosopher: semi-LDR, 44, male - my intellectual twin; relationship anarchist.
-Intellectual Elf, 27, female, the Philosopher's LDR
-Polkadot, 36, dating the Philosopher
-Wiseman, 68, male, solo-poly, my budding LDR

Last edited by bookbug; 01-07-2015 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Clarification
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-07-2015, 04:40 PM
Nadya Nadya is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicalRose View Post
The only thing that really makes me uncomfortable on that level is stuff having to do with sexual safety in someone I'm fluid bonded with, especially if we do establish that we have different levels of comfort.
This. This is the only "rule" I have in my relationships. Me and CJ have differing comfort levels in this matter. I have made it clear to him what my comfort level is - that is, he knows what level of protection to use with other sexual partners and still stay fluid bonded with me. Of course, he has the freedom to behave in other ways and stop the fluid bond with me - and I trust him to keep me informed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicalRose View Post
With anything else, yeah, I don't require my partner to disclose what all they are doing with another person (although my compersive self does like to hear it if they're willing :-)).
Me too The more we know each other the more information CJ is willing to give me about his other relationships. He tells me when he feels like it.

Just to clarify: my other partner Mark chooses to be mono with me, so this does not apply there.
__________________
in a live-in Vee with
CJ: my husband and
Mark: partner
LDR with Steve
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-09-2015, 08:42 AM
InsaneMystic InsaneMystic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappilyFallenAngel View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookbug View Post
Re: the question of cheating. What if the relationship were set up so there was no way to cheat? What do I mean?

The Philosopher came to me one day and said, "I've always viewed the idea of trust as requiring full disclosure. But if I truly trust you, why would I require full disclosure? I trust you to make sound decisions, to manage your life outside of our relationship however you see fit. If you take on a new lover, you are not required to tell me unless you want to. That's trust."
I love this, bookbug. Having a list of relationship rules doesn't appeal to me one bit and Philospher's quote up there pretty much says all I need, not just pertaining to trust but to being with someone in general.

"I trust you to make sound decisions, to manage your life outside of our relationship however you see fit."
Wonderfully put. Just adding - in case it needs to be said? - that this is fully compatible with my insistence on the right of all parties to break up at any time, for any reason. Trust does not require commitment - I can trust myself and anyone else involved to do what we want for as long as we want, and do it together as long as it fits everyone involved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicalRose View Post
The only thing that really makes me uncomfortable on that level is stuff having to do with sexual safety in someone I'm fluid bonded with, especially if we do establish that we have different levels of comfort.
*nods* Rationally, that makes perfect sense... however, there's a big fat neurotic "but" coming.

The way I know myself, it would unbearably stress me out to state a demand of disclosure, let alone a demand of behavior; even when my physical safety is at risk, I'd still see it an an imposition on their freedom that is not in my place to make. I can choose to walk away at any time, but I can not ever demand anything. Here's me, taking care of my stuff; here's you, taking care of yours; and that should stay separate, with any "us" happening incidentally, as a bonus. (If this reminds anyone of the Gestalt Prayer... it's no coincidence. )

Questions like this show I'm possibly too rigid in my ethics for my own well-being (been told that by therapy folk more than once... and still don't see a way to be less rigid that would still let me look myself in the face in the mirror. *shrug*).

As monogamy simply is not an option I'm willing to even consider, I guess if I were to have sex, my only real option would be to always use protection that prevents fluid-bonding, in every single situation involving me. I can't imagine a hypothetical situation in which I could f-b with someone that fulfills the criteria of being both reasonably safe and sufficiently ethical.

Yes, I'm that neurotic. :/

Being asexual, though, I'm in the lucky position where that problem simply isn't a factor - I don't feel any desire for sex with anyone, to start with, and am fully at ease with the thought of dying a virgin. So whatever sexual safety measures a partner takes with other folks will only impact them, not me. I'd hope for them to stay safe for their own sake, simply because I care about the health of folks I love, but in the end, I can let it rest as something that is none of my concern. For me, life would be a lot harder if I weren't asexual... having an orientation that minimizes my stress is of the few unconditionally "lucky lots" I drew in life, I guess.



BTW, the irony of how the "mellow, happy anarchist" first part of this post clashes with the "rigid neurotic" second part isn't lost on me... no need to point it out, I already know. *sigh*
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
anarchy, methodology, radical, relationship anarchy, terminology, theory

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 08:04 PM.