Imagine your ideal relationship.

[LadyMacbeth]

I feel very grateful to have stumbled onto this thread after a very turbulent 72 hours in my current configuration that is struggling to become a "v" (I think.)

My ideal:
Myself and my husband, boyfriend, husband's girlfriend, and her other boyfriend (yikes) all living together. Maybe in the same house, maybe on the same block. There is enough space for alone time when desired, but nobody has to be alone without choice, including the children. There is never need for a child to struggle to find someone to help with homework or to take him/her to the park. Nobody sleeps alone unless he/she wants to. But...we all have our own private room. Nobody has to work through a crisis alone, or be sick alone, or do anything alone that he/she doesn't WANT to do alone. Yet...everyone realizes the value and importance of alone time for personal growth.

We share our resources including money, time, knowledge, energy, and meals. We have no shame, and feel entirely comfortable inviting anyone over without hiding anything about the situation. We are probably poly-fi (although I don't know if that is necessary).

It would be awesome to have a fireplace, and sit around together at night and read books out loud by the fireplace. We would consistently experience the tangible, warm, glowing feeling of love that I have glimmers of when feeling complete acceptance and comfort from the parties involved. Because there is so much love in the room, sometimes it feels that my body can't quite contain it all and will burst, and then I realize that the wonderful thing is that we are all containing it together. The love and connection almost has a life of it's own that is palpable to anyone walking by. We are all better people because of each and every other party involved.

And there will be healthy helpings of compassion and forgiveness when people (like myself) accidentally do or say things that hurt.

The wonderful thing is...I believe this is completely possible and that I am on the journey to it.

[DrunkenPorcupine]

I'm not sure I have an ideal. I mean, sure, I can pinpoint things I like. But I find the things I dislike to be extremely valuable too.

I've felt terrible at times. Afraid to speak my mind, afraid of hurting others, afraid to be hurt. Yet these are almost always countered by times when I feel like I've made growths by leaps and bounds. I can't call something "ideal" when there's that much fear floating around, but I couldn't call it ideal without that much growth either.

And.. there's no "an". I'm finding that my relationships feed off of each other and bring up issues that no relationships do by themselves. And none of these issues are the same within different relationships.

For the same reasons why "one isn't enough", I don't think there can be one ideal to me. Every person I care about and relate to brings different things to the table, good and bad, and I don't think of any of them as more or less important, valuable or "ideal".

That... or maybe ALL voluntary relationships are ideal. I dunno.

[greenearthal]

Originally Posted by polynerdist

Many people have commented on their ideal structure(s); in my case I'll put my thoughts more towards the interpersonal dynamics between the people in the relationship(s).

Amongst other things, some aspects that I think would be present in my ideal intimate relationships are:

- positive energy is given without expectation of reciprocation. People give love, time, attention, help, support, and share resources

- there is a desire to understand and know one another, not as we want them to be, but as they truly are

- there is "microscopic honesty" (from "Conscious Loving": honesty beyond disclosure of facts that includes the expression of one's feelings, thoughts, emotions, as an unfiltered stream of consciousness). There is a lack of concealment of one's self

- there is use of a structured process for resolving conflict

- there is a lack of controlling behaviours; wanting each other to have the freedom to be themselves is inherent

- the individuals take 100% responsibility for their own life and for the quality of the relationship(s). They take the perspective that it is not their partners' job to make them happy. Blame and complaining are minimal

- there is a large degree of flexibility within the relationship to change and adapt based on external forces (the world) and internal forces (from within the relationship). Tendency towards change and evolution rather than stagnation

- there is a continual and conscious process of nurturing the relationship

- there is a high degree of empathy towards one another; everyone exerts a lot of effort to try to understand one another’s ideas, perspectives, and how they see the world

- there is balance between the individuals along different lines, including balancing time together vs. space apart, the balance of sharing of work, etc.

- that everyone shares key fundamental values, and ideas about life, relationships, and the world

- there is sharing of mutual goals, vision, and plans, and everyone works together to realize them

- the individuals are committed to and recognize the need to have fun in the relationship

- the individuals are committed to removing barriers that prevent their ability to be highly emotionally intimate and close

- the individuals are fiercely both independent and interdependent. They live both separate lives and lives intertwined. They recognize the needs of the individual, and attempt to balance that against the needs of the relationship. They are aware of our micro- and macro-cycles of needing closeness/needing independence

- the individuals are totally committed to their own development as separate, independent people. They are also committed to one another's growth; the relationship supports each person's growth as much as possible

- there is a sense of creative co-creation within the relationship; a feeling of synergy

So excellent!

I would nominate that as a front page article. Append an intro and concluding paragraph and I would go to read it often.

[redpepper]

I second that greenearthal. I couldn't of said it better myself. Nerdist writes all that we discuss in our relationship and not only that, has added a lot of the readings he has read. Maybe not the book titles but much of his language is from what he has read and we have shared. What a lot of work there is laid out there, but oh so worth all of it!

[LovingRadiance]

I read Polynerdists Post and

(not quoting it as it's so long but it's earlier in this thread if you didn't read it PLEASE go back and read it)

I felt compelled to share my feelings, the DEPTH of movement in my soul by this post on the board which by accident (I saw that RP had seconded someone else's post and found her post confusing-so I scrolled back through the thread to get a better understanding).

I read this post by Polynerdist (hopefully he won't be offended since you are all able to fully access the post ANYWAY as board members that I have copied it without his explicit permission) and a part of me fell madly in love with a person I've never met (no worries to those who might have cause to wonder-I ain't taking on any new men!).
His words resonate with the TRUTH of who I am, of what I seek, of what I close my eyes each night and dream of as "the life I hope will someday be the life I live in waking hours".

I think that this post-this "thought process" should be re-written, re-posted, and plastered on the walls of every psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, doctor, rabbi, priests office and on the outer walls of every bar, every grocery store, EVERY BUILDING until the TRUTH is finally seen and comprehended by the world and we as a community of the world (as River would call us) begin to create TRUE relationships, full of TRUE love, full of TRUE commitment, full of TRUE acceptance and understanding not only of ourselves (which is lacking in damn near all relationships) but ALSO EACH OTHER as intimately and we PRETEND we know ourselves today.

Polynerdist should spend more time putting his thoughts out there into the world community and not only his local community or family-because he has the concepts down. I can't speak to his ability to put them fully into practice as I have never met him or even spoken to him.
BUT the first step to putting anything into practice-is knowing what it is, the second is deciding you want it-both of which he's got.

I hope-that he will grant me permission to print this, frame it and then hang it on the wall of my home, because THIS is what I want EVERY PERSON who walks through the front door of my home, of my life to understand is MY "world goal", "personal goal", "family goal" and "relationship goal".

THIS is how I want to to show the world I am an activist for not only polyamory freedom, but for LOVE to even EXIST truly in the world, because the "love" that this world practices, is too often not LOVE at all, but control and denial of fear and lack of knowledge of oneself.

THANK YOU Polynerdist! Thank you.

[MonoVCPHG]

Wow!! I second and third everyone's thoughs on your post my friend (Polynerdist)..but I still like my relationship with my bike

[DrunkenPorcupine]

Polynerdist, I've actually got a few "issues" with some of the things you posted. Perhaps they're negated by the post as a whole, because it in general, I think I agree, but with some specific issues, I'd like to see what you think about X.

positive energy is given without expectation of reciprocation. People give love, time, attention, help, support, and share resources

I've seen this specific dynamic backfire. Relationships for me are give and take. If they didn't do something for me, and likewise, the people I'm involved with, they wouldn't be WORTH nurturing or even preserving. I disagree fundimentally with the idea that someone should give of themselves without expecting some form of reward or benefit. Furthermore, to feed off one of your latter points, I think it's IMPOSSIBLE to honor oneself as a unique, thinking individual without thinking about self-benefit.

I've even venture to say that doing so is abusive.

I agree with your latter point WHOLEHEARTEDLY about both honoring the individual AND the relationship, and I don't mean my points above to negate that. But I suppose I'm wondering what your stance on that as a whole is. If someone's in an abusive or one-sided relationship, would you feel it's a virtue to "give [...] without expection of reciprication"?

Also, "sharing resources" could be interpreted vaguely as in the aforementioned "love and affection" or more specifically as "time" or "money". I'm a huge fan of sharing with people I love, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure I'd hold "sharing resources" as an ideal itself. There are some people, for having various value sets, that I'd not want to share my resources with. One of my core values is the ability to produce and provide for oneself. This sort of goes to the "honoring the individual" thing I mentioned before; I believe there is no such THING as a human being who can't produce or provide for themselves in some way or form. Someone entering a relationship with me claiming they could NOT would be them claiming that they are not humanl that they provide no value, that they are worthless. This would seem to conflict to me with your latter points.

the individuals take 100% responsibility for their own life and for the quality of the relationship(s)

I have to see I think these two points to be in conflict themselves. Relationships require individuals and as such, different valuations of the same actions. For a single person to take "100% responsibility" for the quality of the relationship would seem to both absolve, and burden (chicken... egg... egg... chicken...) the people in that relationship. I see how people could take 100% responsibility for themselves, but claiming that you (or redpepper) are 100% responsible for your relationship working seem to dishonor both you and redpepper as individuals, in my eyes, and conflict with your points later.

[LovingRadiance]

DP-may I respond?

I've seen this specific dynamic backfire. Relationships for me are give and take. If they didn't do something for me, and likewise, the people I'm involved with, they wouldn't be WORTH nurturing or even preserving. I disagree fundimentally with the idea that someone should give of themselves without expecting some form of reward or benefit. Furthermore, to feed off one of your latter points, I think it's IMPOSSIBLE to honor oneself as a unique, thinking individual without thinking about self-benefit.

I think the key here is that EVERYONE in the relationship must give of themselves without expecting something SPECIFIC in return. IF anyone ONE person in the relationship is not doing this-the whole thing WILL backfire (every time) in one way or another. It ONLY will work if ALL parties do this.
If any one party fails-then you are correct-the WHOLE thing fails. It's all or nothing.

I've even venture to say that doing so is abusive.

See above. If one person fails-it WOULD be abusive.

I agree with your latter point WHOLEHEARTEDLY about both honoring the individual AND the relationship, and I don't mean my points above to negate that. But I suppose I'm wondering what your stance on that as a whole is. If someone's in an abusive or one-sided relationship, would you feel it's a virtue to "give [...] without expection of reciprication"?

Having been in this situation-my answer would be a resounding NO. It is not. It is ONLY a virtue if you have found a partner who is as committed to this practice as you are. It is only FUNCTIONAL if you have found a partner who is equally committed to the practice as you are.

Also, "sharing resources" could be interpreted vaguely as in the aforementioned "love and affection" or more specifically as "time" or "money". I'm a huge fan of sharing with people I love, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure I'd hold "sharing resources" as an ideal itself. There are some people, for having various value sets, that I'd not want to share my resources with. One of my core values is the ability to produce and provide for oneself. This sort of goes to the "honoring the individual" thing I mentioned before; I believe there is no such THING as a human being who can't produce or provide for themselves in some way or form. Someone entering a relationship with me claiming they could NOT would be them claiming that they are not humanl that they provide no value, that they are worthless. This would seem to conflict to me with your latter points.

Sharing by choice is not the same as sharing because someone claims inability. Maca shares his pay from work, I share my time mothering his (and mine and our) children. I CAN make money working just as well as he-but I don't because it works out better this way. All people SHOULD (not do, but should) come to the relationship as whole individuals who (as you said) are fully aware and capable of caring for and supporting themselves. BUT once you create the relationship then all should be willing to put all of themselves in so that the relationship can be fulfilling to its best capacity. In our case me being a full time at home mom allows me to devote an uninterrupted mind to raising the kids and caring for hte home, instead of both of us working and trying to carry too much. So we CHOSE what parts each would "share" in order to lighten the overall load on the relationship AND each person individually as well..

I have to see I think these two points to be in conflict themselves. Relationships require individuals and as such, different valuations of the same actions. For a single person to take "100% responsibility" for the quality of the relationship would seem to both absolve, and burden (chicken... egg... egg... chicken...) the people in that relationship. I see how people could take 100% responsibility for themselves, but claiming that you (or redpepper) are 100% responsible for your relationship working seem to dishonor both you and redpepper as individuals, in my eyes, and conflict with your points later.

Are you a mathmatician-minded person?
Because I think someone who is very math oriented would see that on account of 100% is "the sum total".

But for myself, I don't think that 100% is NECESSARILY the sum total of anything.

I see it that BOTH people must take 100% responsibility for the relationship AND that includes taking 100% responsibility to not have a relationship with anyone who isn't 100% responsible for the relationship ALSO.
Then you have much less risk of failure as where one person has a weakness-the other has it covered UNTIL THE FIRST CAN STRENGTHEN THEIR WEAKNESS and both parties know that they will both be fully committed to seeking out their own weaknesses and improving them-not allowing themselves to take advantage of the other persons strength.

[Derbylicious]

I have to appologise because I haven't read everyone's posts on this thread. But since it asked about my ideal I figured I didn't have to read the whole thing (I promise I will go back and read everyone's comments).

I'd love to have a commune type set up where everyone loves and supports each other with the option of having sexual relationships to happen between the members of the commune. I find that the people that I love deeply are not always the ones I am sexual with. But it doesn't suck to leave the option open .

We would need a much bigger house to make something like that happen though as I imagine being able to get away from the group for some alone time could get challenging unless you have a lot of space.

In my ideal commune in my head all the adult members of the household are free to chose whatever role suits them best, be it a home making role or a workforce role. There would be an understanding that the income coming into the house would be for the good of everyone living there and that non-paid work was just as valuable to the upkeep of the household. If there are activities that the family group memebers wanted to take part in (sports and the like) there would always be someone at home to care for the children. It would be important that all members of the group be able to participate in any activities that were important to them.

I'm not sure how dates would work or how sleeping arrangements would work themselves out. I guess all that would depend on the dynamics of the group. I'm not even sure how many people would make up my ideal group but my gut instinct is 6-8 (along with any kids).

-Derby
(that got a little more verbose than I had intended)

[DrunkenPorcupine]

I realize after I wrote out that really, really long post that Nerdist wasn't describing "healty" but "ideal". So I suppose a lot of my comments were more or less mental masturbation.