In a news article that couldn't have been better timed if I'd planned it:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/polygamy-is-legal-in-utah-for-now
A Utah judge ruled that the law making polygamy illegal in Utah was unconstitutional. This has been around for a while and this is actually the conclusion of an appeal, not the original judgement. See here:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-polygamy-waddoups-ruling.html.csp
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/
...Well, actually, it's not quite that simple. It isn't "Polygamy"; it's cohabitation. The judge struck it down because, essentially, there are already laws to prosecute bigamy; there are already laws to prosecute abuses inflicted on partners, especially under-age partners, in certain forms of polygamous marriages (the famous "marrying 14- and 15-year-old girls to 50+-year-old religious leaders" thing which has gotten some Mormon sects a lot of bad press); and Utah does not prosecute adultery or adulterous cohabitation... So prosecuting "religious cohabitation" when no other crimes have been committed is unconstitutional. It's an interesting spin from part of the media on what, underneath, is really a decision based around religious discrimination.
According to Wikipedia (and who doesn't trust the Oracle? *cough*) there are now three states that have anti-cohabitation laws - Mississippi, Florida, and Michigan - and there's some level of expectation that if/when they're challenged they're going to be struck down due to various precedents. When it comes down to it, though, these laws are ones that are generally totally ignored except in particular cases; Utah in particular was famous for totally ignoring their cohabitation law in the case of couples and only using it to threaten polyamorous families - such as the "Sister Wives" case in the original link. It's all part of the same prejudice - the idea that a coupled relationship is "normal", even when it's technically in violation of the law. The total lack of acceptance... But worse, the totally *unthinking* lack of acceptance. It's not even an active discrimination on most cases; it's just the blithe assumption that since it's abnormal it can't be accepted.
I mentioned when I linked the video this week I was going to refer back to it; so let me tie it in here. Right near the beginning at 1:17 is a woman (one of their experts - even re-watching it, I didn't catch her name) talking about BDSM "pretty much being about kinky sex". At 32:35, Hudsy Hawn talks about how important it is to "Let yourself go and role-play." The video was specifically referring to BDSM and power exchange, but the same general attitude is endemic to all of kink - whether it be BDSM, poly relationships, asexuality, or something else. If it's not something you personally believe in or understand, all too often it's "fantasy" or "make-believe"... And frankly, this is an attitude that drives me frigging crazy. Do some people get involved in kink, BDSM, Poly, or something else as "play"? As just something to fool around with? Absolutely. I'm even willing to go so far as to say most people involved feel that way. But even in the video it contradicts itself - one of the couples there are a permanent, married, 24/7 Dom/sub relationship complete with negotiated contract. Parts of their relationship - that contract - may not be protected by law, but that doesn't make it "not real".
It's not just BDSM. Too many people look at poly or open relationships and just call it "cheating" or "unworkable" or "selfish" or "a phase". Too many people look at asexual relationships and say "Oh, if they don't want sex they don't want a relationship, they just want a friend"... When what's really going on is that they have every bit as much desire to be loved, wanted, protected, held close as any other person - they just can't relate to what most people assume about relationships.
Funnily enough, this is the root of my single large disagreement with Dan Savage. He constantly refers to BDSM as "Cops and Robbers for adults with their pants off", which - as I said above - is true enough (in a glib sense) for most BDSM relationships but totally discounts a significant minority of the culture. Similarly he frequently discounts asexual folk because to him the sexual relationship is the center of the relationship, and so a missing sexual relationship means the more general relationship is almost invalid from the start. For someone who's so open, so - to use his term - GGG about almost everything, it's such a strange blind spot to me.
It's astounding to me the blind spots that people don't seem to see they have. Even many of my most progressive friends and family, who are rabidly in favour of freedom for same-sex marriage and gay adoption and all sorts of similar things - just get skeeved out by the idea of either a coupled relationship with a demi- or asexual partner... Or a permanent, committed relationship with more than two members... Or a permanent D/s relationship.
It doesn't help that something like a permanent D/s relationship is very hard to enshrine in law, and rightfully so. Asexual relationships are - for the most part - already supported by law; not having sex, or having a modified sex life, isn't normally a cause for the relationship being invalidated or ignored. Poly relationships are essentially totally unsupported in Western civilization; unless the relationship is a monogamous couple it's either ignored or banned. Many of the same problems found here by same-sex couples apply to multiple partnerships, just in a slightly stranger way; if Ash and I did end up in a relationship with a third, if we settled into a family with someone else, and I ended up in the hospital or - god forbid - dead, Ash would be the only one with any rights or protections. If a poly triangle has a child, two of them are the legal parents as well as the biological parents - and the third If the same family decides to adopt a child, it's actually one couple that is adopting the child and the third has no rights at all... And the fact there's a third adult in the house may be looked at seriously askance when being interviewed for the adoption. Poly legal issues really are directly parallel, with only a fraction of the attention.
A D/s relationship, though, is usually a formalization of removing part of someone's rights - and I doubt there's any viable way to enshrine that into law without offering significant risk of abuse... If we're ever able to make it past the revulsion most people have when you bring up "no, I don't just mean for play - like, for real." One thing that Ash has brought up with me is that when you start talking submissives, start talking long-term permanent Master/slave relationships, the only real comparison most people have had is the looming spectre of slavery that still even these days hangs over race relations in the US; forced sexual slavery of women being trafficked around the world; and, these days, the 50 Shades trilogy which enshrines an abusive relationship in the trappings of BDSM and tries to make it sexy. None of them are very positive examples... But they're the only examples too many people have.
This has been a very rough week for me. I know I'm essentially just very deep in my own head, but it's been very difficult to shake off a lot of depression, and a big chunk of it is centered around this discussion. People who are okay with BDSM may not be okay with poly or demisexual; people who are okay with poly may not be okay with BDSM or demisexual; people who are fine with demisexual may be totally freaked out by BDSM or poly; and very few of any of them are okay with my limits surrounding my ex-wife and the trouble it will inevitable cause me if I'm fully open about most of this. Just that look of disgust, or that dreaded "...Oh, I see" when you're talking to them... Or even just that sympathetic look when they're trying to explain why you're wrong and assuming you don't understand them when really you understand them perfectly well and are just exhausted of being patronized. It's very easy to fall into despair and fear at never finding someone who can look at you and meet your needs and fit into your life and never give you that look... Of never finding a place where you feel like you fit in because you're just a little bit too far over the edge for anyone around you to ever be comfortable with you, or for you to be comfortable with yourself.
When it comes down to it I know it's just fear and not rational, but I don't have an answer to this one except to keep the faith.
I'll let you know how it goes.
2014/08/29
2014/08/27
Bonus Links - Kink in Real Life TV Spot
Upworthy posted this:
http://www.upworthy.com/some-think-its-just-plain-kinky-but-the-amount-of-trust-this-lifestyle-takes-is-staggering?c=ufb1
Which I definitely think was worth the time to watch. I'll come back to a couple of specific topics in this in future posts.
http://www.upworthy.com/some-think-its-just-plain-kinky-but-the-amount-of-trust-this-lifestyle-takes-is-staggering?c=ufb1
Which I definitely think was worth the time to watch. I'll come back to a couple of specific topics in this in future posts.
2014/08/26
Polyamoury and Asexuality
So my last entry was originally going to be the end of my little Polyamoury series, but Ash asked me a question last week I decided to include... Specifically in what way - if any - does asexuality relate to or affect polyamoury? And the short answer is "frequently, very well". First, lets just say that there's no reason at all an asexual-scale person can't be in a polyamorous relationship.
The biggest place where they interact is in the area of jealousy. It's not always a positive effect or not always a negative one, but the effect is almost always there. That's because jealousy - depending on the person - can come from different sources; some people get far more jealous over emotional involvement from their partners with other people, while some people get far more jealous over physical involvement from their partners. In the latter case, an asexual partner may remove jealousy from the equation; while in the former, it may be even worse than normal because the relationship is *purely* emotional.
The second really big place where they're going to interact is that - with less or no sexual contact - some of the complications simply disappear. If there is no intercourse involved (no sex or non-intercourse sex), then there's no risk of pregnancy from that partner and significantly reduced risk of disease transmission.
This isn't a rule, of course. Let's say that Alice the asexual woman and Bob the non-asexual guy are married, and the relationship is open so that Bob can satisfy his sex drive somewhere else. If he isn't smart about it (and let's face it, how many guys act smart when sex is involved?) he can *introduce* an enormous amount of risk by being exposed to diseases or risking pregnancies that would not exist at all in a typical relationship with an asexual partner. Common sense still applies.
One discussion I had with an asexual woman from California on Fetlife about the subject brought up the idea that to her, finding a couple to bond to was actually ideal. She's asexual but not aromantic, and wants very much to be part of a partnership in the same way as all her friends - but because she can't offer the physical side of it, is afraid she'll never find what she's looking for... Afraid that any partner she has will not have their needs met and be unhealthy as a result. In that respect, a polyamorous or open relationship is the best of all worlds; the chance for an asexual person to have the attachment they may need while their partner(s) still have all their needs fulfilled.
At the end of it, though, there's the fact that for someone like me - who enjoys sexual acts sometimes, even if intercourse just isn't my thing and my sex drive is lower than most folks' - there's not a really strong difference there... Or at least, any difference is a matter of quantity and not type. My "relationships" are almost always at least partially sexual, even if that sexuality doesn't necessarily match the societal norm in most cases. Rather, my poly nature is almost more a product of my asexuality; my view of relationships (which I've gone over before) tends to remove a lot of the barriers to having multiple partners vs. a single monogamous partner.
So how does asexuality work with polyamoury? Quite well, thank you. It changes things... But no more than it changes any monogamous relationship; and in my experience, polyamoury actually makes asexual relationships easier to maintain!
The biggest place where they interact is in the area of jealousy. It's not always a positive effect or not always a negative one, but the effect is almost always there. That's because jealousy - depending on the person - can come from different sources; some people get far more jealous over emotional involvement from their partners with other people, while some people get far more jealous over physical involvement from their partners. In the latter case, an asexual partner may remove jealousy from the equation; while in the former, it may be even worse than normal because the relationship is *purely* emotional.
The second really big place where they're going to interact is that - with less or no sexual contact - some of the complications simply disappear. If there is no intercourse involved (no sex or non-intercourse sex), then there's no risk of pregnancy from that partner and significantly reduced risk of disease transmission.
This isn't a rule, of course. Let's say that Alice the asexual woman and Bob the non-asexual guy are married, and the relationship is open so that Bob can satisfy his sex drive somewhere else. If he isn't smart about it (and let's face it, how many guys act smart when sex is involved?) he can *introduce* an enormous amount of risk by being exposed to diseases or risking pregnancies that would not exist at all in a typical relationship with an asexual partner. Common sense still applies.
One discussion I had with an asexual woman from California on Fetlife about the subject brought up the idea that to her, finding a couple to bond to was actually ideal. She's asexual but not aromantic, and wants very much to be part of a partnership in the same way as all her friends - but because she can't offer the physical side of it, is afraid she'll never find what she's looking for... Afraid that any partner she has will not have their needs met and be unhealthy as a result. In that respect, a polyamorous or open relationship is the best of all worlds; the chance for an asexual person to have the attachment they may need while their partner(s) still have all their needs fulfilled.
At the end of it, though, there's the fact that for someone like me - who enjoys sexual acts sometimes, even if intercourse just isn't my thing and my sex drive is lower than most folks' - there's not a really strong difference there... Or at least, any difference is a matter of quantity and not type. My "relationships" are almost always at least partially sexual, even if that sexuality doesn't necessarily match the societal norm in most cases. Rather, my poly nature is almost more a product of my asexuality; my view of relationships (which I've gone over before) tends to remove a lot of the barriers to having multiple partners vs. a single monogamous partner.
So how does asexuality work with polyamoury? Quite well, thank you. It changes things... But no more than it changes any monogamous relationship; and in my experience, polyamoury actually makes asexual relationships easier to maintain!
2014/08/25
2014/08/22
Won't You Think of the Children?
So one subject that comes up a lot in the area of polyamoury is the question of children when their parents are poly. For that matter, it comes up a lot in many non-standard relationships, but - in my experience at least - poly is the place it comes up most outside of homosexual couples. The question as it relates to same-sex couples, though is a major conversation point in media, drawing fire from both sides; while the children of poly families don't get much screen time. The discussion - to some level - does show up both in media and news, with shows like Sister Wives and the recent news stories about the United Effort Plan out in Utah/Arizona, but even when the focus shifts to the children from the parents it's all too often about child abuse, inappropriate living environments, and similar problems. So what's the real deal with children in poly relationships? The answer, possibly surprisingly, is "very little that isn't also true of every other relationship out there".
Children of polyamorous relationships really, for the most part, don't live significantly different lives than children of non-polyamorous relationships any more. There are variations from "traditional" families but - with a drastically higher divorce and multiple-marriage rate, the increasing legality of same-sex couples, and partners who form families while never marrying - poly folk hardly have a monopoly on that at this point. Lets address a few of those points - arguments I've heard or read in my research - specifically.
1) "Raising kids in a family with three or more parents is confusing/dangerous for the kids." This has been said directly to me, and is so absurd I don't even know where to start. I've never seen statistics on it but I'm 100% convinced a "standard two-parent family", when it comes to child-raising, is an almost total myth. Single parents and divorced-and-remarried parents are incredibly common at this point. My son has four parents - his biological mother, his biological mother's wife, me (his biological father), and my wife. Even ignoring the marriage statistics, though, parenting is not a biological function - it's a tribal function. "It takes a village to raise a child" may be trite, but it's accurate; most children have siblings, aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, cousins, family friends, teachers, coaches, and dozens of other folks impacting their upbringing - having two parents isn't magical, and can't be considered in isolation. Imagining that a close-knit, faithful three-person parenting group is somehow inherently less stable or correct than two parents is ignorant and arrogant to the extreme.
2) "You'll never know whether the kids are yours or one of the other men's." First, this assumes a level of fluid bonding which isn't necessarily normal - a woman having unprotected sex with multiple men. If that's what's going on, and I assume everyone involved knows about it, you're literally laying your own bed here. Second, paternity tests - they're damned cheap at this point. Walmart sells them for $25. If it means that much to you, or there's a specific financial/legal reason you need to know, find out. Third, there's a difference between biological paternity and family. Ash may have zero biological relation to my son, but she's an amazing mother to him - the extent of how well her and my parenting styles mesh is one of the reasons we got married. If you're in a poly family, worry more about bringing the kids up in a safe and healthy manner and less about whose child they are.
3) "Raising kids from multiple parents together can confuse them." Again, how is this any different from half-siblings or step-siblings from parents with a second marriage? Or children being raised in close proximity to cousins? Children make their family with the people around them. It doesn't matter if they're related or unrelated; it matters who they love and who loves them.
4) "Open/poly relationships are a bad example for the children, teaching them unhealthy relationship patterns." This is one of those arguments which is sortof half-true and can be hard to fight, but the real answer is that *unhealthy relationships* teach children bad relationship patterns - this argument is no more than prejudicially classifying "poly" as "bad" or "unhealthy". In my experience and research, the average open/poly relationship is *more* healthy than your average monogamous one because of a combination of more communication between the members of the relationships and the higher likelihood that everyone's needs are being met. A healthy poly or open relationship is no worse - in fact, probably better - an example for children than multiple sequential healthy monogamous relationships, and is far *better* for them than an unhealthy monogamous relationship. Put the blame where it really belongs.
5) "Children make open/poly relationships impossible to keep discreet." This objection always makes me laugh because of the number of times I've encountered or read about poly relationships who thought their kids were ignorant that "mommy's friend" or "mommy and daddy's roommate" was actually sleeping with them, only to find out that little Mary or Johnny knew all along. This isn't a new thing; parents have always had things they wanted to keep from their children. Affairs are the obvious one - daddy's little piece on the side or mommy's "wrestling" with the pool boy while daddy's at work - but it doesn't even have to be sinister. A divorced/widowed parent may not want their child to know about a new boy/girlfriend. A gay or bi parent - especially if the child is from a previous hetero marriage - may not want their child to know about their sexual orientation. A kinky parent may not want their child to find out about the dungeon in the basement. This isn't a new problem. The real answer here is "good parenting". Also this is closely related to...
6) "It's unfair to make kids keep secrets from family/friends/authority figures." This one is 100% true; it *is* grossly unfair to them, and telling them to keep it secret isn't the answer. If it's desperately important that someone not know about your relationship and you're unwiling or unable to keep it secret from your kids... Don't. Like I said before, if it's something you need to keep secret... Seriously consider if it's something you should be doing at all. It may not be fair to you to restrict you from being a family with your loved ones... But the other side of that is the cost of openly doing what you should be allowed to do.
Both these last ones here are very close to home for me. My son doesn't know Ash and I are open, or that I'm poly by nature. The closest we've ever gotten to addressing it was commenting on "Dad going out with a friend", which is about as innocent as it gets. Similarly, he doesn't know I'm kinky. This is partly because he's only 8, too young to truly understand all of the aspects of it... But it's more because I don't want to put him in a position of needing to keep secrets from his mother to protect me. His mother knows I'm kinky and knows I'm poly by nature (she does not, to the best of my knowledge, know that Ash and I are open), and it's something she has threatened to use against me in court before. For better or for worse, the courts are as a rule not friendly towards poly situations. It may come across as selfish, but I will say with 100% certainty that I'm protecting all of us - Ash, myself, my son and all our relationships - by simply avoiding the fight, because even if the courts take no steps as a reaction to that revelation the extra stress between his parents can be nothing but bad for the boy.
Right now, with no permanent partner in the picture, it's not hard to just totally divorce those two parts of my life. If at some point we *do* have a permanent third partner living with us... In the short term, my son is only with me part time, and that third partner will be Mike and Ash's roommate. And in the long term, when I think both he's old enough to fully understand the conversation and there's no real risk of retaliation from his mother finding out, he'll know the truth - the whole truth.
Children complicate things - they always do. It's your responsibility as a parent to do the best for them that you can. Always remember that kids learn what they're taught - if you teach them that being open or poly is something to be ashamed of, that's what they'll know; and if you teach them nothing more complicated that the third or fourth person are nothing more than family, that's how they'll grow up. It isn't any different from any other relationship, when you get back down to it; not a single issue children raise are unique to poly relationships. All of them are shared by gay parents, or divorced parents, or widowed parents, or even just traditional purely two-parent families. Don't over-complicate the issue - just raise them as any other child should be raised, and you'll be fine.
Children of polyamorous relationships really, for the most part, don't live significantly different lives than children of non-polyamorous relationships any more. There are variations from "traditional" families but - with a drastically higher divorce and multiple-marriage rate, the increasing legality of same-sex couples, and partners who form families while never marrying - poly folk hardly have a monopoly on that at this point. Lets address a few of those points - arguments I've heard or read in my research - specifically.
1) "Raising kids in a family with three or more parents is confusing/dangerous for the kids." This has been said directly to me, and is so absurd I don't even know where to start. I've never seen statistics on it but I'm 100% convinced a "standard two-parent family", when it comes to child-raising, is an almost total myth. Single parents and divorced-and-remarried parents are incredibly common at this point. My son has four parents - his biological mother, his biological mother's wife, me (his biological father), and my wife. Even ignoring the marriage statistics, though, parenting is not a biological function - it's a tribal function. "It takes a village to raise a child" may be trite, but it's accurate; most children have siblings, aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, cousins, family friends, teachers, coaches, and dozens of other folks impacting their upbringing - having two parents isn't magical, and can't be considered in isolation. Imagining that a close-knit, faithful three-person parenting group is somehow inherently less stable or correct than two parents is ignorant and arrogant to the extreme.
2) "You'll never know whether the kids are yours or one of the other men's." First, this assumes a level of fluid bonding which isn't necessarily normal - a woman having unprotected sex with multiple men. If that's what's going on, and I assume everyone involved knows about it, you're literally laying your own bed here. Second, paternity tests - they're damned cheap at this point. Walmart sells them for $25. If it means that much to you, or there's a specific financial/legal reason you need to know, find out. Third, there's a difference between biological paternity and family. Ash may have zero biological relation to my son, but she's an amazing mother to him - the extent of how well her and my parenting styles mesh is one of the reasons we got married. If you're in a poly family, worry more about bringing the kids up in a safe and healthy manner and less about whose child they are.
3) "Raising kids from multiple parents together can confuse them." Again, how is this any different from half-siblings or step-siblings from parents with a second marriage? Or children being raised in close proximity to cousins? Children make their family with the people around them. It doesn't matter if they're related or unrelated; it matters who they love and who loves them.
4) "Open/poly relationships are a bad example for the children, teaching them unhealthy relationship patterns." This is one of those arguments which is sortof half-true and can be hard to fight, but the real answer is that *unhealthy relationships* teach children bad relationship patterns - this argument is no more than prejudicially classifying "poly" as "bad" or "unhealthy". In my experience and research, the average open/poly relationship is *more* healthy than your average monogamous one because of a combination of more communication between the members of the relationships and the higher likelihood that everyone's needs are being met. A healthy poly or open relationship is no worse - in fact, probably better - an example for children than multiple sequential healthy monogamous relationships, and is far *better* for them than an unhealthy monogamous relationship. Put the blame where it really belongs.
5) "Children make open/poly relationships impossible to keep discreet." This objection always makes me laugh because of the number of times I've encountered or read about poly relationships who thought their kids were ignorant that "mommy's friend" or "mommy and daddy's roommate" was actually sleeping with them, only to find out that little Mary or Johnny knew all along. This isn't a new thing; parents have always had things they wanted to keep from their children. Affairs are the obvious one - daddy's little piece on the side or mommy's "wrestling" with the pool boy while daddy's at work - but it doesn't even have to be sinister. A divorced/widowed parent may not want their child to know about a new boy/girlfriend. A gay or bi parent - especially if the child is from a previous hetero marriage - may not want their child to know about their sexual orientation. A kinky parent may not want their child to find out about the dungeon in the basement. This isn't a new problem. The real answer here is "good parenting". Also this is closely related to...
6) "It's unfair to make kids keep secrets from family/friends/authority figures." This one is 100% true; it *is* grossly unfair to them, and telling them to keep it secret isn't the answer. If it's desperately important that someone not know about your relationship and you're unwiling or unable to keep it secret from your kids... Don't. Like I said before, if it's something you need to keep secret... Seriously consider if it's something you should be doing at all. It may not be fair to you to restrict you from being a family with your loved ones... But the other side of that is the cost of openly doing what you should be allowed to do.
Both these last ones here are very close to home for me. My son doesn't know Ash and I are open, or that I'm poly by nature. The closest we've ever gotten to addressing it was commenting on "Dad going out with a friend", which is about as innocent as it gets. Similarly, he doesn't know I'm kinky. This is partly because he's only 8, too young to truly understand all of the aspects of it... But it's more because I don't want to put him in a position of needing to keep secrets from his mother to protect me. His mother knows I'm kinky and knows I'm poly by nature (she does not, to the best of my knowledge, know that Ash and I are open), and it's something she has threatened to use against me in court before. For better or for worse, the courts are as a rule not friendly towards poly situations. It may come across as selfish, but I will say with 100% certainty that I'm protecting all of us - Ash, myself, my son and all our relationships - by simply avoiding the fight, because even if the courts take no steps as a reaction to that revelation the extra stress between his parents can be nothing but bad for the boy.
Right now, with no permanent partner in the picture, it's not hard to just totally divorce those two parts of my life. If at some point we *do* have a permanent third partner living with us... In the short term, my son is only with me part time, and that third partner will be Mike and Ash's roommate. And in the long term, when I think both he's old enough to fully understand the conversation and there's no real risk of retaliation from his mother finding out, he'll know the truth - the whole truth.
Children complicate things - they always do. It's your responsibility as a parent to do the best for them that you can. Always remember that kids learn what they're taught - if you teach them that being open or poly is something to be ashamed of, that's what they'll know; and if you teach them nothing more complicated that the third or fourth person are nothing more than family, that's how they'll grow up. It isn't any different from any other relationship, when you get back down to it; not a single issue children raise are unique to poly relationships. All of them are shared by gay parents, or divorced parents, or widowed parents, or even just traditional purely two-parent families. Don't over-complicate the issue - just raise them as any other child should be raised, and you'll be fine.
2014/08/19
The Shape of Polyamoury
One of the things I've done repeatedly in the last few entries is refer to both "open and poly" relationships, and most of the things I've said apply to both. Open and Poly relationships, though, are really radically different things.
An open relationship really means nothing more than that one or more of the people involved is free to date or pursue other people - that being in one or more relationships (of any level of commitment) does not rule out pursueing other relationships. In and of itself, calling a relationship "open" does not apply any specific structure or type of structures to the underlying relationships; and it can be on top of almost any other relationship. A poly relationship can be open, if one ore more of the partners is free to pursue other people; so can an otherwise monogamous relationship, and in fact an open nature can lead from being monogamous to becoming polyamorous.
Being open also can have multiple meanings. It may mean that the open partners only pursue sex with other people - this includes swinging, generally. It may mean the open partners pursue only non-sexual behaviours with other people; dating, activities, emotional connections, but no sexual contact that may generate insecurities or health risks. This is particularly common in kinky or partially-kinky situations - a Dom or Domme married to a vanilla spouse with an exclusive sexual relationship, but having submissives or play partners on the side to indulge their non-vanilla interests, for example.
The real big distinction between open and poly, however, comes when one of those relationships itself becomes committed - and one or more of the partners finds themself in two relationships. In fact, I'm going to stick with that for my definitions:
-An open relationship is one where one or more of the partners are free to pursue other people in a non-committed manner, with whatever limitations or restrictions are agreed to between the committed partners.
-A poly relationship is where at least one member of a committed relationship is in fact in at least two committed relationships.
The line can get fuzzy sometimes in the middle; after all, not everyone has strong distinctions between "dating/non-committed" and "dating/committed". That line is incredibly subjective, and may even be seen as committed by one partner and non-committed by the other. That's fine - I'm still going to stick with those answers.
Poly relationships, on the other hand, are generally much more clearly defined; their structure depends heavily on the exact nature of the relationships involved. The most common structures are what are typically known as "vees" and "triads". A vee is three people, where one (the "pivot", as I've heard them called) has relationships with both of the others, but those others do not have a committed relationship with each other. This may be a person dating two people; may be a married couple plus a third long-term secondary partner or girlfriend/boyfriend for one of them. It's distinct from a triad in that in a vee there are two people who aren't involved with each other. Please note, this doesn't mean they don't have a relationship with each other and aren't invested in each other; it means they aren't involved with each other. In most healthy triads, those two people are friends, talk, may even be very close; they just aren't a couple.
A triad, of course, is then a group of three people who are all involved with each other - that uninvolved pair are involved - and otherwise shares a lot of features with a triad. Sometimes one pair of them will be married, sometimes not; sometimes the triad or vee act as a single married unit even though at least one of those folks will not have legal protections around their involvement.
Both vees and triads come in all sorts of combinations. Depending on their orientations and preferences, it could be three men, two men and a woman, two women and a man, or three women... The only restriction, obviously, is that a relationship involving three straight women or three straight men won't be a sexual one.
Beyond vees and triads, the next most common arrangement is a quad - four people. The arrangements of relationships inside the quad can be... Complex. It could be a single pivot with three committed partners; it could be the "swinging model", where two couples also exchange partners, creating a "square quad"; it could be a committed (married or not) pair where each of them has another partner, creating a "U"; it could be four people all involved with each other... The number of possible compositions is staggering, especially when you take into account different combinations of male/female and gay/straight/bi/pansexual.
The next major organization is what I've commonly seen referred to as a "Star"; a core group of however many (I've heard of core star groups from 2-5, but there's no reason it couldn't be more depending on the people involved), where most or all of them have additional relationships "radiating out" from the center. A "U" quad is really a very small 2-core star, but the core can be larger.
After that... I mean, if I wanted to I could go on for days about all the possible arrangements. Poly relationships can be small, tight-knit groups or sprawling interconnected tribes and everything in between; You just need to always remember that the "right" size and structure for a poly relationship is the one that works best for the people in it.
An open relationship really means nothing more than that one or more of the people involved is free to date or pursue other people - that being in one or more relationships (of any level of commitment) does not rule out pursueing other relationships. In and of itself, calling a relationship "open" does not apply any specific structure or type of structures to the underlying relationships; and it can be on top of almost any other relationship. A poly relationship can be open, if one ore more of the partners is free to pursue other people; so can an otherwise monogamous relationship, and in fact an open nature can lead from being monogamous to becoming polyamorous.
Being open also can have multiple meanings. It may mean that the open partners only pursue sex with other people - this includes swinging, generally. It may mean the open partners pursue only non-sexual behaviours with other people; dating, activities, emotional connections, but no sexual contact that may generate insecurities or health risks. This is particularly common in kinky or partially-kinky situations - a Dom or Domme married to a vanilla spouse with an exclusive sexual relationship, but having submissives or play partners on the side to indulge their non-vanilla interests, for example.
The real big distinction between open and poly, however, comes when one of those relationships itself becomes committed - and one or more of the partners finds themself in two relationships. In fact, I'm going to stick with that for my definitions:
-An open relationship is one where one or more of the partners are free to pursue other people in a non-committed manner, with whatever limitations or restrictions are agreed to between the committed partners.
-A poly relationship is where at least one member of a committed relationship is in fact in at least two committed relationships.
The line can get fuzzy sometimes in the middle; after all, not everyone has strong distinctions between "dating/non-committed" and "dating/committed". That line is incredibly subjective, and may even be seen as committed by one partner and non-committed by the other. That's fine - I'm still going to stick with those answers.
Poly relationships, on the other hand, are generally much more clearly defined; their structure depends heavily on the exact nature of the relationships involved. The most common structures are what are typically known as "vees" and "triads". A vee is three people, where one (the "pivot", as I've heard them called) has relationships with both of the others, but those others do not have a committed relationship with each other. This may be a person dating two people; may be a married couple plus a third long-term secondary partner or girlfriend/boyfriend for one of them. It's distinct from a triad in that in a vee there are two people who aren't involved with each other. Please note, this doesn't mean they don't have a relationship with each other and aren't invested in each other; it means they aren't involved with each other. In most healthy triads, those two people are friends, talk, may even be very close; they just aren't a couple.
A triad, of course, is then a group of three people who are all involved with each other - that uninvolved pair are involved - and otherwise shares a lot of features with a triad. Sometimes one pair of them will be married, sometimes not; sometimes the triad or vee act as a single married unit even though at least one of those folks will not have legal protections around their involvement.
Both vees and triads come in all sorts of combinations. Depending on their orientations and preferences, it could be three men, two men and a woman, two women and a man, or three women... The only restriction, obviously, is that a relationship involving three straight women or three straight men won't be a sexual one.
Beyond vees and triads, the next most common arrangement is a quad - four people. The arrangements of relationships inside the quad can be... Complex. It could be a single pivot with three committed partners; it could be the "swinging model", where two couples also exchange partners, creating a "square quad"; it could be a committed (married or not) pair where each of them has another partner, creating a "U"; it could be four people all involved with each other... The number of possible compositions is staggering, especially when you take into account different combinations of male/female and gay/straight/bi/pansexual.
The next major organization is what I've commonly seen referred to as a "Star"; a core group of however many (I've heard of core star groups from 2-5, but there's no reason it couldn't be more depending on the people involved), where most or all of them have additional relationships "radiating out" from the center. A "U" quad is really a very small 2-core star, but the core can be larger.
After that... I mean, if I wanted to I could go on for days about all the possible arrangements. Poly relationships can be small, tight-knit groups or sprawling interconnected tribes and everything in between; You just need to always remember that the "right" size and structure for a poly relationship is the one that works best for the people in it.
2014/08/15
...And the Light Side
So obviously not everything about polyamoury is bad. It's very easy for me to dwell on the downsides of poly relationships; not because I've suffered so terribly with it (in the grand scheme of things, I haven't), not because of the terrible relationships my friends have had (though at least one has - had, soon, we hope - a really neglective punk of a husband I'm not a fan of)... Just because I've seen and heard of too many cases where one person just blithely jumps into a poly relationship, convinced it's the best thing they could ever do and totally unaware of the consequences... Usually ending in less sadness and more anger. So I'm always very cautious.
That being said, I don't want to sound like I'm down on it - from my comments about my own life it should be obvious I'm not, since I'm functionally open/poly myself. When they're healthy, poly relationships really do have a huge upside. So why are people poly? Why are people open? What do they get out of it? It varies from person to person, and also frequently varies between open and poly relationships, but here are a few things.
To some people, being in an open or poly relationship is a nigh-endless source of "new relationship energy" - or NRE, as it's usually referred to. Meeting a new person can be a huge rush. Getting to know them, exploring them, finding out how you mesh and merge can really charge a person up, and it's almost like an addiction. Some people do it to continue to get that feeling.
Some people do it to meet different needs. My need for companionship, for example, is generally separate from my needs around sadism and dominance; getting them all fully met with a single person is... Not incredibly likely. Most everyone has different needs in different areas and at different times... And sometimes, it just makes more sense to meet them with different people.
Another rather obvious possible reason is that of variety. Some people, for lack of a better way to put it, get bored easily. Continueing to date openly to keep that variety going, for some people, is about the only way to make a permanent relationship with someone else viable. The only alternatives, to some people, are being single or cheating; and there's nothing inherently wrong with a person being functionally unable to be monogamous, just like there's nothing inherently wrong with a person being functionally unable to be polyamorous.
Some people - especially those in long-term, close-knit relationships - do it because of the extra support it can generate. In a lot of healthy relationships, your girlfriend or wife or significant other is your greatest supporter and biggest source of external strength; if you have two partners instead of one, they can each be a similar source of the same strength and support. This means, of course, in relationships with more than two people when one is upset or sick there are more people to take care of them; and when one *isn't* in the mood, you're far more likely to have someone to fool around with...
The most basic thing that I've seen or experienced, though, that people get out of being poly is simply expressing their natural feelings. In any monogamous relationship people have to suppress feelings for those who aren't their primary partner; an open or poly relationship usually takes that restriction away and allows for far more honesty between the people involved.
So yes, as long as the relationship is healthy - by mostly the same definition as I would use to describe a healthy monogamous relationship - and whatever complications it brings, there's a lot of benefit you can get from a poly relationship. People may or may not agree, but to me it's worth the trouble.
2014/08/12
The Dark Side of Poly
Jealousy is one of the most endemic human conditions you'll ever encounter; it frequently astounds me how much so. I've been more or less held hostage by past girlfriends (and my ex-wife), being forced to disassociate from female friends in order to preserve my relationship. It's astounding what you can be convinced makes sense by someone you're attracted to or invested in, especially when you're insecure and confronted by the handicap of a confused or mistaken sexual identity.
I really have very little idea how much this happens to other people outside my immediate experience, but it's been endemic to one degree or another in my own relationship history and that of the people I grew up with. The worst was my ex-wife - about whom I could, were I feeling unusually masochistic that day, go on for hours - but it's happened with numerous other girlfriends as well, on dozens of individual occasions. So many people live in a haze of restrictions and problems and jealousy, and it's so normal in our relationship that half they time they don't even realize it.
Being poly doesn't really solve any of those issues - unsurprisingly, it makes them worse for all sorts of reasons. A lot of glib comments about poly folk having it great and lots of sex and no problems and... It's all so crazy. And for today, I thought I'd address a few of them.
The biggest one, unsurprisingly, is jealousy; and this is honestly the one that stops more people than anything else from being in open relationships. It can be difficult to see the person you're with be with someone else. The reaction from many folk when confronted by the idea of their partner being with other people is "Why am I not good enough for them?"... A question which is sure to start a fun conversation.
The problem here, of course, is that sometimes that *is* the answer; but that's less of an indictment than it may at first appear. It's... Hard to find someone who will meet all your needs. Not just because compromise is a major part of relationships; but more simply because so many people have partially or wholly conflicting needs. There's nothing wrong with getting parts of your needs met by different people... Until jealousy kicks in and those people conflict with each *other*.
Unfortunately, in many cases there's going to be very little you can do about this. Most jealousy is - at its heart - the product of insecurity, so sometimes this can be resolved simply by proving the person's fear is unfounded. This isn't always a viable option, though - sometimes the insecurity is too deeply seated.
Never forget that this type is feeling is valid. One of the biggest problems I've encountered with poly folk in the past is the idea that everyone either is or should be poly. You'd think that with the level of intolerance poly practitioners meet in some areas, they'd be more accepting in their own right - less intolerant of *monogamous* folk.
Poly isn't for everyone. Some people (some tiny minority) really do find a perfect partner who meets all their needs... And of the vast majority where that isn't true, many do find a partner they're perfectly content compromising for. Relationships, partnering, is compromise; you're sharing your life with someone else, and it won't always be exactly what you wanted or assumed. Maybe the person's unwillingness or discomfort with being in a poly relationship is insecurity; or jealousy; or fear; or possessiveness; or discouraging past experience; or social conditioning; or any of a number of other possible things. No matter how invalid it may be *in your own mind*, remember that it's valid *to them*. You have the right to disagree - hopefully respectfully - and discuss it, even try to sway them to your point of view... But they have the right not to change their minds.
Monogamous folks, whatever the reason they choose to be that way, have every much as right to be monogamous as poly folk do to be polygamous. Failing to respect that is just sad hypocrasy.
Beyond those emotions, however, there are still other problems with poly relationships; and the next biggest one is the sheer amount of work it takes. Relationships take *work*. You have to put effort into maintaining all of your relationships. Depending on the exact nature of those relationships, maybe it's not hard; having one primary partner and a large number of tertiary partners is perfectly viable, for example. Partners who lean towards being purely sexual or activity-based relationships rather than emotionally attached partners tends to take less effort - just time. The more involved you are with your partners, however, the more of an investment you have in the person, the more thinly spread you become having multiple partners.
This isn't really something you necessarily need to fix; it's more accurate to say that this helps shape your relationships. I'm not currently dating anyone; but when I am dating someone it eats up time. I spend time talking with them, texting them, concentrating on them, actually physically going out with them, just as I do with Ash. Of course for me and my occasionally-confusing demisexual nature the line isn't quite so clearly defined (my motivations and relationships are just different than most), but the same applies to any polygamous person with their own quirks and differences.
Communication in a poly relationship, of course, gets far more complicated. It's bad enough trying to keep abreast of everything when you only have one primary partner; trying to give that level of attention to two primary partners (or a primary and one or more secondary partners) is far more complicated.
The last big downside I'll mention is that being in a poly relationship - even if, or especially if, you're the monogamous partner of a poly person rather than directly poly yourself - imposes entirely new problems on you that you may never encounter in another relationship. Things like dealing with the downside of your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend's "NRE" (New Relationship Energy, the rush they get when they get a new girlfriend/boyfriend), or dealing with their significant other's breakup.
Break-ups can be exceptionally ugly in poly relationships depending on exactly how it falls out. With a couple or monogamous pair, if there's a breakup, there's normally no really complicated emotional entanglements to sort out. It may be painful, the two of you may not agree... But once the decision for the relationship to dissolve is made, it only *directly* affects the two of you. In a poly relationship, the possibility exists for a relationship to *partially* dissolve, and this gets incredibly complicated incredibly quickly. If my three fake poly folk Alfred, Bobby and Christine are in a relationship, and Alfred and Bobby decide to cut off their ties... What happens? Does it transition from a triad to a V? Does either Alfred or Bobby leave entirely, changing the threesome into a couple? What if Christine's relationships with both men are still strong - does it convert to a vee? Does the entire relationship end and dissolve entirely? You end up in a situation where your relationship with a single person is intimately tied to your relationship with someone else, and they can affect each other in ways monogamous folk are not confronted with.
When it comes down to it, this category isn't really drastically different from things you may encounter with your friends and family; being poly just drags it into relationships in a way that doesn't happen to monogamous folk. It's the same problems, but more... Intimate and possibly intense. New wrinkles on the same issues you've always had.
The summary here, of course, is that being polygamous (successfully and fairly, at least) isn't easy; it's work, it's difficult, and it's not for everyone. Never forget your communication, never forget the feelings of the people you're with, and never forget they have a right to those feelings! If you make sure everyone's needs are being met, it'll work out. Just never forget that some days, "working out and meeting everyone's needs" means breaking up, if your needs indicate another partner or poly relationship, while their needs exclude it. Be honest with yourselves, address it carefully but directly, and you'll find a place that's best for both of you.
I really have very little idea how much this happens to other people outside my immediate experience, but it's been endemic to one degree or another in my own relationship history and that of the people I grew up with. The worst was my ex-wife - about whom I could, were I feeling unusually masochistic that day, go on for hours - but it's happened with numerous other girlfriends as well, on dozens of individual occasions. So many people live in a haze of restrictions and problems and jealousy, and it's so normal in our relationship that half they time they don't even realize it.
Being poly doesn't really solve any of those issues - unsurprisingly, it makes them worse for all sorts of reasons. A lot of glib comments about poly folk having it great and lots of sex and no problems and... It's all so crazy. And for today, I thought I'd address a few of them.
The biggest one, unsurprisingly, is jealousy; and this is honestly the one that stops more people than anything else from being in open relationships. It can be difficult to see the person you're with be with someone else. The reaction from many folk when confronted by the idea of their partner being with other people is "Why am I not good enough for them?"... A question which is sure to start a fun conversation.
The problem here, of course, is that sometimes that *is* the answer; but that's less of an indictment than it may at first appear. It's... Hard to find someone who will meet all your needs. Not just because compromise is a major part of relationships; but more simply because so many people have partially or wholly conflicting needs. There's nothing wrong with getting parts of your needs met by different people... Until jealousy kicks in and those people conflict with each *other*.
Unfortunately, in many cases there's going to be very little you can do about this. Most jealousy is - at its heart - the product of insecurity, so sometimes this can be resolved simply by proving the person's fear is unfounded. This isn't always a viable option, though - sometimes the insecurity is too deeply seated.
Never forget that this type is feeling is valid. One of the biggest problems I've encountered with poly folk in the past is the idea that everyone either is or should be poly. You'd think that with the level of intolerance poly practitioners meet in some areas, they'd be more accepting in their own right - less intolerant of *monogamous* folk.
Poly isn't for everyone. Some people (some tiny minority) really do find a perfect partner who meets all their needs... And of the vast majority where that isn't true, many do find a partner they're perfectly content compromising for. Relationships, partnering, is compromise; you're sharing your life with someone else, and it won't always be exactly what you wanted or assumed. Maybe the person's unwillingness or discomfort with being in a poly relationship is insecurity; or jealousy; or fear; or possessiveness; or discouraging past experience; or social conditioning; or any of a number of other possible things. No matter how invalid it may be *in your own mind*, remember that it's valid *to them*. You have the right to disagree - hopefully respectfully - and discuss it, even try to sway them to your point of view... But they have the right not to change their minds.
Monogamous folks, whatever the reason they choose to be that way, have every much as right to be monogamous as poly folk do to be polygamous. Failing to respect that is just sad hypocrasy.
Beyond those emotions, however, there are still other problems with poly relationships; and the next biggest one is the sheer amount of work it takes. Relationships take *work*. You have to put effort into maintaining all of your relationships. Depending on the exact nature of those relationships, maybe it's not hard; having one primary partner and a large number of tertiary partners is perfectly viable, for example. Partners who lean towards being purely sexual or activity-based relationships rather than emotionally attached partners tends to take less effort - just time. The more involved you are with your partners, however, the more of an investment you have in the person, the more thinly spread you become having multiple partners.
This isn't really something you necessarily need to fix; it's more accurate to say that this helps shape your relationships. I'm not currently dating anyone; but when I am dating someone it eats up time. I spend time talking with them, texting them, concentrating on them, actually physically going out with them, just as I do with Ash. Of course for me and my occasionally-confusing demisexual nature the line isn't quite so clearly defined (my motivations and relationships are just different than most), but the same applies to any polygamous person with their own quirks and differences.
Communication in a poly relationship, of course, gets far more complicated. It's bad enough trying to keep abreast of everything when you only have one primary partner; trying to give that level of attention to two primary partners (or a primary and one or more secondary partners) is far more complicated.
The last big downside I'll mention is that being in a poly relationship - even if, or especially if, you're the monogamous partner of a poly person rather than directly poly yourself - imposes entirely new problems on you that you may never encounter in another relationship. Things like dealing with the downside of your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend's "NRE" (New Relationship Energy, the rush they get when they get a new girlfriend/boyfriend), or dealing with their significant other's breakup.
Break-ups can be exceptionally ugly in poly relationships depending on exactly how it falls out. With a couple or monogamous pair, if there's a breakup, there's normally no really complicated emotional entanglements to sort out. It may be painful, the two of you may not agree... But once the decision for the relationship to dissolve is made, it only *directly* affects the two of you. In a poly relationship, the possibility exists for a relationship to *partially* dissolve, and this gets incredibly complicated incredibly quickly. If my three fake poly folk Alfred, Bobby and Christine are in a relationship, and Alfred and Bobby decide to cut off their ties... What happens? Does it transition from a triad to a V? Does either Alfred or Bobby leave entirely, changing the threesome into a couple? What if Christine's relationships with both men are still strong - does it convert to a vee? Does the entire relationship end and dissolve entirely? You end up in a situation where your relationship with a single person is intimately tied to your relationship with someone else, and they can affect each other in ways monogamous folk are not confronted with.
When it comes down to it, this category isn't really drastically different from things you may encounter with your friends and family; being poly just drags it into relationships in a way that doesn't happen to monogamous folk. It's the same problems, but more... Intimate and possibly intense. New wrinkles on the same issues you've always had.
The summary here, of course, is that being polygamous (successfully and fairly, at least) isn't easy; it's work, it's difficult, and it's not for everyone. Never forget your communication, never forget the feelings of the people you're with, and never forget they have a right to those feelings! If you make sure everyone's needs are being met, it'll work out. Just never forget that some days, "working out and meeting everyone's needs" means breaking up, if your needs indicate another partner or poly relationship, while their needs exclude it. Be honest with yourselves, address it carefully but directly, and you'll find a place that's best for both of you.
2014/08/08
2014/08/05
Opening Up Your Mind
On the first of my five overnight business trips, back in May, my coworker (who was driving me) and I had a very long conversation on the way there and back. We had a good 4-5 hours of driving and topics roved from books to movies to music to work to relationships to hobbies to houses to our ex-marriages. It was obvious on the way out I'd said something that confused her slightly, though, and on the way back I managed to figure out what it was. She'd asked a question and I'd responded with a comment about my "girlfriend", and to other questions I'd answered with comments about my "fiance", and there was enough of a conflict in the responses that she'd gotten confused. On the way home I asked her, and figured out what had happened - and I clarified by explaining the fact that the girlfriend I was referring to was not the same person as my fiance.
She was in many ways way more okay with it than I'd been expecting. She's now the second person at work who knows the situation, and it really was a bit of a risk; she's definitely more conservative than some. She took it remarkably well, though; she wasn't willing to at least openly object to it. It may be telling that she's carefully avoided the subject ever since. Which is fine; most people really aren't entirely comfortable with the idea. She was remarkably open about discussing it rationally rather than just reacting badly. For better or for worse, the idea of an open relationship or being polyamorous really isn't one that most people even understand very well.
Our US culture is very firmly rooted in the concept of monogamy, mostly because... Well, maybe I'll try to dodge most of the really controversial commentary at least for this entry. The fact remains that the general assumption up front in the dating scene and most relationships is one of monogamy. It doesn't help that "monogamy" means different things to different people. This is the first problem people run up against - misunderstandings or different understandings - but it's certainly not the last.
So what exactly is "cheating"? What constitutes breaching monogamy? Ask different people, and the following may or may not be allowed:
You know, it's funny to me how much easier my current relationship is than so many of my relationships in the past. Even if we didn't have an open relationship Ash and I would at least be able to talk about it, which seems to be a rare commodity in general. It's somehow comforting to be able to discuss attractive women we see - our tastes are different but overlap, so it's occasionally also amusing. But Ash is willing to admit that there's a lot of factors here not in our control, and that's a good place to start.
If I pass a sexy woman in the street, I notice. Most people do. The fact that she's a body type I like is an objective statement. If I notice her, the fact that I find her attractive is also an objective statement. The first place my actual judgement, my conscious choice, comes in is when I respond to that fact. I can just ignore it; I can be creepy and stare; I can strike up a conversation and flirt; or any of a number of other possible things... But why would you judge someone on the pieces not under their control? Why would you hold how someone *else* looks against your partner?
Be willing to talk. Be willing to discuss and be open to the fact that you aren't the only person your partner will ever possibly be attracted to on any level. Very few people get married to and die with their first ever girlfriend; if you were even the second person they dated, it should be blatantly obvious that there were other options out there. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that fact! There's nothing wrong with being human... And part of being human is other people. Remember that, and your relationships will probably be far happier.
She was in many ways way more okay with it than I'd been expecting. She's now the second person at work who knows the situation, and it really was a bit of a risk; she's definitely more conservative than some. She took it remarkably well, though; she wasn't willing to at least openly object to it. It may be telling that she's carefully avoided the subject ever since. Which is fine; most people really aren't entirely comfortable with the idea. She was remarkably open about discussing it rationally rather than just reacting badly. For better or for worse, the idea of an open relationship or being polyamorous really isn't one that most people even understand very well.
Our US culture is very firmly rooted in the concept of monogamy, mostly because... Well, maybe I'll try to dodge most of the really controversial commentary at least for this entry. The fact remains that the general assumption up front in the dating scene and most relationships is one of monogamy. It doesn't help that "monogamy" means different things to different people. This is the first problem people run up against - misunderstandings or different understandings - but it's certainly not the last.
So what exactly is "cheating"? What constitutes breaching monogamy? Ask different people, and the following may or may not be allowed:
- Staring at another person
- Finding another person attractive
- Developing feelings for another person
- Flirting with another person
- Being close/best friends with someone who could be a potential love interest (bi/pan-sexuals have it rougher on this one...)
- Become "emotionally involved" with someone else (e.g. fall in love with them)
- Hugging another person
- Cuddling another person
- Being sexually involved with another person
- Have a "relationship" with another person (e.g. dating)
You know, it's funny to me how much easier my current relationship is than so many of my relationships in the past. Even if we didn't have an open relationship Ash and I would at least be able to talk about it, which seems to be a rare commodity in general. It's somehow comforting to be able to discuss attractive women we see - our tastes are different but overlap, so it's occasionally also amusing. But Ash is willing to admit that there's a lot of factors here not in our control, and that's a good place to start.
If I pass a sexy woman in the street, I notice. Most people do. The fact that she's a body type I like is an objective statement. If I notice her, the fact that I find her attractive is also an objective statement. The first place my actual judgement, my conscious choice, comes in is when I respond to that fact. I can just ignore it; I can be creepy and stare; I can strike up a conversation and flirt; or any of a number of other possible things... But why would you judge someone on the pieces not under their control? Why would you hold how someone *else* looks against your partner?
Be willing to talk. Be willing to discuss and be open to the fact that you aren't the only person your partner will ever possibly be attracted to on any level. Very few people get married to and die with their first ever girlfriend; if you were even the second person they dated, it should be blatantly obvious that there were other options out there. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that fact! There's nothing wrong with being human... And part of being human is other people. Remember that, and your relationships will probably be far happier.
2014/08/01
A Matter of Context
I went on a short overnight business trip this week; I was there for one day out of a two-day meeting at a conference center a couple of hours away. This is actually the fourth of five that I've gone to at the same place, and for most of them I actually got a ride from one of my coworkers. The first time we went, she came to pick me up and so I gave her directions. It talked about turning off the main road, going around through the access road, going through the intersection, etcetera... And it ended up confusing her - I'm bad at directions, I guess. When she got there she looked up and said "Oh! Why didn't you just tell me it was the white building?" So I looked around and of course she was right - every building in our complex is plain brick except ours which is painted.
The answer, of course, is that I didn't mention it to her because it had never crossed my mind. I can be less than perceptive on occasion, I admit, but I can be extremely perceptive at others - it's a matter of context, not just my total oblivious nature. I knew the building was white; what didn't occur to me was the significance of that in relation to the context at hand.
Over the weekend Ash and I were out shopping - looking at craft supplies, as it happens, and discussing projects one could make with them - and I'd made a comment about replicating a Doctor Who thing I'd seen online and giving it to her sister. There was a fair amount of discussion around it, centered around the question she had for me, "Do you 'like my' sister?" Ash is concerned about the possibility of coming across as coming on to her - whether or not there's any truth to it, or whether or not it's reasonable or logical - to the other family members who'd probably end up observing at least part of our interactions.
The answer, if you're curious, is "no"; she's cute and kindof adorable, but we have very little in common outside of video games and my fiance. More to the point - and completely ignoring that I'm engaged to her sister, which is potentially creepy enough, and that I'm ten years older than her, which is enough to turn off the majority of folks - I have no particular reason to believe she'd be the tiniest bit comfortable with a number of aspects of my lifestyle and preferences. But the problem isn't reality, or what I'm thinking, or what the sister is thinking, but the perception different people apply to the situation. In a very similar way to it just never occuring to me that the colour of my apartment building was relevant to the question at hand, the idea that people would perceive anything I'd been doing as a come-on or something inappropriate.
The occurrence is really demonstrative of what I've always personally found to be the worst aspect of being into various kinks and having an alternative lifestyle; people simply don't understand. I've talked about assumptions before, because they touch on so many different aspects of alternative lifestyles. I've talked before about addressing your assumptions, trying to identify them and tear them down to resolve them - because as a rule they're dangerous. What do you do, though, when it's simply such a different context that you can't see the assumption in the first place?
In my life it comes up most often because of my asexual/demisexual side; it gives me a very strange perspective on interactions with other people at times. It's certainly not the only thing, however. When you're into this sort of edgy thing - in the sense of "edge of society", at the very least - you end up getting a lot of blank stares. People just hear these ideas that don't grok, these concepts which are so far outside their worldview that they don't have any basis for analyzing or relating to it. What do you do? Most people run away or freak out or get weirded out and turn their backs... And this is one of the worst things that can happen to a kinkster.
This entry is less about advice and more about fear. This is what drives people to avoid kink, to compromise on what they want, to give up their dreams. To be in vanilla relationships even though they're unsatisfied. To refuse to come out to their friends, family, and loved ones. It can lead to an incredible amount of isolation, depression, fear and dread - it's not hard to convince yourself you'll never find anyone who'll really fill that hole in your life... And when you do, your family and friends and coworkers will still never accept it.
When Ash and I were on vacation a couple of weeks back, we got together overnight with a friend of mine and her fiance - Lorena and Xavier, we'll call them. Lorena and I have known each other for a number of years, though this was only the second time we'd actually met; I'd never met Xavier before, and Ash had never met either of them. It was a really good time, even if I - very unfairly, I'd say - never did have a chance to tie Lorena up and play with her tits (which, obviously, is what you do with a hot girl with a nice chest when you meet her at the beach...). There was a fair amount of mutual attraction floating around the group, though the level of comfort was obviously limited by the fact we were really only just meeting as a group (as a pair of couples) for the first time; still, we have a lot of common interests, a lot of similar personality traits, and I happen to know Lorena would love to fool around with Ash and - if it weren't for the current state of her relationship with Xavier - me as well. It's not hard to imagine the four of us settling into a life together, really; I mean there's a lot of "if"s and unknowns and problems and barriers, but - no matter how unlikely the idea is - the basic compatibility is there. And of course, the three of them would probably have a very pleasant, fulfilling sex life; and I... Well, none of them are submissives or masochists or particularly into bondage except as a feature of sex; and as I've frequently ended up in my life, however much I loved them and however much they'd be willing to include me in vanilla sexual activities, my base sexual proclivities wouldn't be satisfied. And the idea was... Very depressing. Knowing that even as one part of me was totally fulfilled beyond what I'd once considered would be possible, another part of me would still be looking for a way to be satisfied. It can be hard being faced with that kind of situation - very hard to get past the isolation you feel when you realize that.
Ash is amazing to me. She's very supportive, she loves me, she's my best friend, and she wants me to be happy; and she's never - since she really understood them - been anything but open about the fact that she'll never be able to satisfy some of my core needs. That's part of why she's so supportive of my seeking that with someone else. Not all of it, but an important part; she knows that there's some level where we'll both be unsatisfied together. Dan Savage would refer to it as the "price of admission" - is what we're missing worth what we get out of our relationship? - and the answer for us is a "yes" that neither of us questions, but in some cases it can be harder to agree or decide.
There are a few things you can do, but most of them aren't different from what you do in every-day life; just scarier and occasionally more difficult. You can find people who support you, who are willing to accept you even when they don't understand. And you can find people who are a fit to the relationship you need. It can be a long process; it can be scary, and difficult, and even painful. But it's just as possible as any search for a partner, and you can find the right person - or people - who will fulfill you and give you what you need to be happy
Don't give up hope.
The answer, of course, is that I didn't mention it to her because it had never crossed my mind. I can be less than perceptive on occasion, I admit, but I can be extremely perceptive at others - it's a matter of context, not just my total oblivious nature. I knew the building was white; what didn't occur to me was the significance of that in relation to the context at hand.
Over the weekend Ash and I were out shopping - looking at craft supplies, as it happens, and discussing projects one could make with them - and I'd made a comment about replicating a Doctor Who thing I'd seen online and giving it to her sister. There was a fair amount of discussion around it, centered around the question she had for me, "Do you 'like my' sister?" Ash is concerned about the possibility of coming across as coming on to her - whether or not there's any truth to it, or whether or not it's reasonable or logical - to the other family members who'd probably end up observing at least part of our interactions.
The answer, if you're curious, is "no"; she's cute and kindof adorable, but we have very little in common outside of video games and my fiance. More to the point - and completely ignoring that I'm engaged to her sister, which is potentially creepy enough, and that I'm ten years older than her, which is enough to turn off the majority of folks - I have no particular reason to believe she'd be the tiniest bit comfortable with a number of aspects of my lifestyle and preferences. But the problem isn't reality, or what I'm thinking, or what the sister is thinking, but the perception different people apply to the situation. In a very similar way to it just never occuring to me that the colour of my apartment building was relevant to the question at hand, the idea that people would perceive anything I'd been doing as a come-on or something inappropriate.
The occurrence is really demonstrative of what I've always personally found to be the worst aspect of being into various kinks and having an alternative lifestyle; people simply don't understand. I've talked about assumptions before, because they touch on so many different aspects of alternative lifestyles. I've talked before about addressing your assumptions, trying to identify them and tear them down to resolve them - because as a rule they're dangerous. What do you do, though, when it's simply such a different context that you can't see the assumption in the first place?
In my life it comes up most often because of my asexual/demisexual side; it gives me a very strange perspective on interactions with other people at times. It's certainly not the only thing, however. When you're into this sort of edgy thing - in the sense of "edge of society", at the very least - you end up getting a lot of blank stares. People just hear these ideas that don't grok, these concepts which are so far outside their worldview that they don't have any basis for analyzing or relating to it. What do you do? Most people run away or freak out or get weirded out and turn their backs... And this is one of the worst things that can happen to a kinkster.
This entry is less about advice and more about fear. This is what drives people to avoid kink, to compromise on what they want, to give up their dreams. To be in vanilla relationships even though they're unsatisfied. To refuse to come out to their friends, family, and loved ones. It can lead to an incredible amount of isolation, depression, fear and dread - it's not hard to convince yourself you'll never find anyone who'll really fill that hole in your life... And when you do, your family and friends and coworkers will still never accept it.
When Ash and I were on vacation a couple of weeks back, we got together overnight with a friend of mine and her fiance - Lorena and Xavier, we'll call them. Lorena and I have known each other for a number of years, though this was only the second time we'd actually met; I'd never met Xavier before, and Ash had never met either of them. It was a really good time, even if I - very unfairly, I'd say - never did have a chance to tie Lorena up and play with her tits (which, obviously, is what you do with a hot girl with a nice chest when you meet her at the beach...). There was a fair amount of mutual attraction floating around the group, though the level of comfort was obviously limited by the fact we were really only just meeting as a group (as a pair of couples) for the first time; still, we have a lot of common interests, a lot of similar personality traits, and I happen to know Lorena would love to fool around with Ash and - if it weren't for the current state of her relationship with Xavier - me as well. It's not hard to imagine the four of us settling into a life together, really; I mean there's a lot of "if"s and unknowns and problems and barriers, but - no matter how unlikely the idea is - the basic compatibility is there. And of course, the three of them would probably have a very pleasant, fulfilling sex life; and I... Well, none of them are submissives or masochists or particularly into bondage except as a feature of sex; and as I've frequently ended up in my life, however much I loved them and however much they'd be willing to include me in vanilla sexual activities, my base sexual proclivities wouldn't be satisfied. And the idea was... Very depressing. Knowing that even as one part of me was totally fulfilled beyond what I'd once considered would be possible, another part of me would still be looking for a way to be satisfied. It can be hard being faced with that kind of situation - very hard to get past the isolation you feel when you realize that.
Ash is amazing to me. She's very supportive, she loves me, she's my best friend, and she wants me to be happy; and she's never - since she really understood them - been anything but open about the fact that she'll never be able to satisfy some of my core needs. That's part of why she's so supportive of my seeking that with someone else. Not all of it, but an important part; she knows that there's some level where we'll both be unsatisfied together. Dan Savage would refer to it as the "price of admission" - is what we're missing worth what we get out of our relationship? - and the answer for us is a "yes" that neither of us questions, but in some cases it can be harder to agree or decide.
There are a few things you can do, but most of them aren't different from what you do in every-day life; just scarier and occasionally more difficult. You can find people who support you, who are willing to accept you even when they don't understand. And you can find people who are a fit to the relationship you need. It can be a long process; it can be scary, and difficult, and even painful. But it's just as possible as any search for a partner, and you can find the right person - or people - who will fulfill you and give you what you need to be happy
Don't give up hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)