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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)