What do you think?

topic posted Sat, April 18, 2009 - 6:25 AM by  Noel
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Is a don't ask, don't tell relationship really poly?
posted by:
Noel
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: What do you think?

    Sat, April 18, 2009 - 7:43 AM
    It can be from one side, but if someone doesn't explicitly know, there's still an element of cheating, and a lack of capacity for growth in the relationship.

    My first "poly" relationship was a long distance relationship. From my side, it was poly. He knew my hubby, child, friends, stayed at our home at times, we took trips together and talked daily. It was a time and emotionally intensive connection, it was poly. From his side, I met his friends, his wife knew about me and my family, but never wanted any information about our relationship, or to meet me.

    After six years, the relationship ran it's course, with no more potential for growth available, given the strictures of not being able to be _in_ his life, meet his kids and spouse. I wouldn't do "don't ask, don't tell" again, even though that was one of the most formative relationships I've had thus far. It was too limiting, and not poly enough for my tastes, now that I've grown some. ;)
    • Re: What do you think?

      Sat, April 18, 2009 - 8:12 AM
      Every time I've tried to form a relationship with a person in a 'don't ask don't tell' situation it has always led to a frantic and dramatic end. Since the only common factor in all of those attempts has been me, I don't choose to enter into those situations any longer.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Sat, April 18, 2009 - 2:13 PM
    I think people are polyamorous, and relationships are open or not. It's not my place to judge what rules people people want to make about their relationships. However, for my own peace of mind, I prefer to avoid DADT situations--once burnt, twice shy.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Mon, April 20, 2009 - 2:24 AM
    just my two cents but it sounds more like a relationship in denial. avoidance doesn't create a space where everyone gets their needs met nor does it promote communication. easy things to say online of course...in real life its' probably much easier to avoid awkward conversation in the short term but that's just putting things off until something blows up further on down the road.

    why do you ask?
  • Re: What do you think?

    Mon, April 20, 2009 - 3:32 AM
    DADT is the attempt to create a comfort level in which one seeks to navigate stormy emotionally charged insecurities by denial. It's a protecting the ego exercise. Nice. One should attempt to diminish ones own ego. Because time and event will humble us all. If we live long enough.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Mon, April 20, 2009 - 8:39 AM
    It might be, if all people involved are comfortable with the agreement. Poly is less about absolute rules than about individuals' ability to achieve balance with what each is willing to give and receive with regard to stated needs. In other words... if mutual happy agreement exists between all parties, then yes, it's poly.

    Personally, I'd not agree to a DADT relationship, so it wouldn't be MY poly. :)
  • Re: What do you think?

    Mon, April 20, 2009 - 11:24 AM
    Well, first off, poly isn't so exacting a term. ;D

    But really, polyamory is multiple, concurent romantic relationships (or being open to the possibility of that).

    Since don't ask, don't tell falls under this then it's polyamory in my book.

    It's not something that I would engage in but what I choose to engage in or choose to avoid doesn't mean anything beyond my personal choices. If some folks want don't ask, don't tell then more power to them.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Mon, April 20, 2009 - 4:19 PM
    It sure can be. I'd hate to define poly for other people or tell them what their relationship is or isn't.

    From a practical standpoint though, dating someone in a DADT relationship is usually frustrating. Because their partner doesn't want to know about it, it tends to make their plans with you less firm--resulting canceled dates and/or having a hard time making concrete plans with the person. It's got to be a pretty casual relationship.
    • Re: What do you think?

      Mon, April 20, 2009 - 10:30 PM
      I do think its poly because its more than one partner.

      It is probably about working around other peoples insecurities. Obviously it would be better if people could get past them, but I am not sure we should look down on people who dont. Maybe some people are just more comfortable that way.

      I think that a DADT situation is not ideal for serious dating. If you have to walk on egg shells or avoid revealing the relationship, then I dont see long term potential. I think its just fine for casual hookups though, assuming the general idea of outside partners has been consented to.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Wed, April 22, 2009 - 2:06 PM
    "Is a don't ask, don't tell relationship really poly?"

    If they want to call it that, there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Sat, April 25, 2009 - 7:04 AM
    maybe yes, maybe no.

    So my main squeeze tells me stuff, but often forgets, i know he's not keeping stuff from me, he just forgets. Sometimes I tell him NOT To tell me the details and sometimes we talk at length about details.

    If you all have an understanding about each other and no unreasonable expectations- but its too emotional for some folks to talk about a person's other lovers maybe don't ask / don't tell works for you.

    Personally, I think its too strict, could cause problems when people find out anyway, and open communication is the greatest lesson in all my poly activities so introducing this would be terrible.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Sat, April 25, 2009 - 10:28 PM
    "Is a don't ask, don't tell relationship really poly?"

    Here's a simpler answer:

    Of COURSE it is -- it's multiple partners engaging in some sort of mutually acceptable multi-partner relationship.

    Most every objection to such a thing falls into two types:

    Objection #1: "It's not MY style, therefore it's not REALLY poly" which is, of course, elitist bullshit and can be ignored.

    Objection #2: "It could be lying" which is of course, indicative of someone who doesn't understand the QUESTION, and is actually answering a DIFFERENT question, along the lines of "Do you believe your partners when they tell you their other partners don't want to know about you?"
  • Re: What do you think?

    Sun, April 26, 2009 - 12:03 AM
    A former poly partner I was in relationship with for over a year had a don't ask/don't tell sort of arrangement with his wife. I talked with him yesterday and again, he described it working like this:

    She has a monthly date night where she may not get back until midnight. She tells him not to ask her any questions, because she won't tell him anything. He is frustrated by this - he would like to hear play by play details of wild sex, in addition to hearing about who this person is that she cares about. But, she won't do it.

    She has the same expectation with her husband of not wanting to know any details. He goes out and she says please be home by noon tomorrow or at least call by noon to let me know you are all right. She doesn't want to know anything. While he and I were involved, he told her that he was seeing me and from time to time, she wanted reassurance that he was no less attached to her. Of course, that reassurance was easy for him to give her. But, that was it. She didn't want to meet me, she didn't want to hear about dates, etc. They have conducted their relationships like this for a lot of years. It works for them. It wasn't as neat and "by the book" as I wanted, but it is their relationship. I'm not responsible for how they interact. I asked a lot of questions - over the year and more and the responses are consistent and I believe truthful.

    Life gets very complicated - messy. I'm glad that I engaged in that relationship rather than writing him off as not doing poly right.
    • Re: What do you think?

      Sun, April 26, 2009 - 4:22 AM
      Well, I'm of the "reticent about sex" persuasion myself. The only way I could see myself discussing specifics of what I do in bed with someone would be where one partner WANTED to have his/her activities discussed and the other partner WANTED to hear it. And I mean, actively wanted and having stated that preference to me, not, "Well, I don't care if you say something."

      Meeting partners? Sure. I don't insist, but I usually enjoy it when it happens.

      Telling partners I have partners? Yeah, they want to know about it.

      Sweaty details? Not my style, typically. It'd have to be an intersection of kinks, I think.
      • Re: What do you think?

        Tue, April 28, 2009 - 2:34 PM
        I agree with what you said about "sweaty details". I want to know who my wife is with, I want to know about dates, I want to know if they had sex or not. However, I don't need to know the details. If I ask that's one thing. But, to me that is between the two of them. We are upfront and open about who we are with and when... but the, "blow by blow", so to speak.... no.
    • Re: What do you think?

      Sun, April 26, 2009 - 11:54 AM
      "It works for them. It wasn't as neat and "by the book" as I wanted, but it is their relationship. I'm not responsible for how they interact. I asked a lot of questions - over the year and more and the responses are consistent and I believe truthful. "

      And it's a darn shame common use of the word "behold" has fallen from favor -- this is a perfect example of a fine use of it!
      • Re: What do you think?

        Sat, May 30, 2009 - 1:35 PM
        For my 2 cents worth. I don't think it is. If we are going to engage in Poly, then keeping Poly behaviour from a partner is simply cheating. I have heard of cases where a wife or husband will grant the husband/wife "off leash" time and simply ask no questions about what happens on the basis that no STD's are brought home, but this is rare.
        Also how can you have a "relationship" when most of the persons life is off limits...that's not a relationship, that's a fuckbuddy.
        Also we must consider what will happen when the spouse who doesn't know about you finds out.
        I remember working with a Chef who used to tell pretty female apprentices that he was in an open marriage....he was until his wife found out (her cousin worked in the same place).
        So my opinion is a simple: No it's not.
        • Re: What do you think?

          Sat, May 30, 2009 - 1:41 PM
          Well, yes, but what you're describing is NOT what Noel asked about. What you're describing is LYING.

          • Re: What do you think?

            Sat, May 30, 2009 - 2:57 PM
            So, who gets to define polyamory? And why would we be defining it? I guess I think polyamorous people should be defining themselves for the most part. So, I would be reluctant to say, so, and so, is, or isn't , polyamorous. On the other hand, words are about communication, and polyamory is a term used to communicate a non-monogamous relationship style but is it the best use of the term to have it include ALL non-monogamous relationship styles? Or is it more useful to have it mean certain non-monogamous relationship styles?

            From a more inclusive term such as non-monogamous (anything anyone does with multiple partners)

            to less inclusive such as polyamory (anything anyone does with multiple partners that does not include lying?)

            to even less inclusive term that might exclude don't ask, don't tell?

            I mean it's not like there is some platonic state of relationship out there called polyamory that we are seeking to understand. It's our generation that created the term. I think differentiating between swinging and poly is pretty useful (sorry to open that can of worms) but it helps me understand what people are trying to communicate, what they are looking for, etc.

            If we make polyamory too inclusive do we make it less capable of carrying a communicative punch?
            • Re: What do you think?

              Sat, May 30, 2009 - 3:13 PM
              There is a not-insignificant difference for me between the terms "non-monogamous" and "polyamorous". The first has more to do with sexual practices, while the second is emotionally focused. Non-monogamous people may be poly, but the two words don't overlap fully.

              If we were to make polyamory a fully inclusive term for anything with multiple partners not including lying, I think I'd find a new word to describe what relationship style I enjoy.
              • Re: What do you think?

                Sat, May 30, 2009 - 6:54 PM
                "If we were to make polyamory a fully inclusive term for anything with multiple partners not including lying, I think I'd find a new word to describe what relationship style I enjoy."

                Inclusion is so odious? Why?
            • Re: What do you think?

              Sat, May 30, 2009 - 3:18 PM
              I'm actually in favor of inclusiveness to the point where I don't feel the need to differentiate myself, my REAL love and relationship PURITY from those nasty, slutty swingers. *grin*

              I mostly find the need to differentiate amusing and for myself am fine with anyone consensually non-monogamous using the term polyamory.
              • Re: What do you think?

                Sat, May 30, 2009 - 3:28 PM
                Well, I don't mind those *slutty* swingers, sometimes I enjoy them quite a bit but I do like understanding what people are trying to communicate.

                I think I could go with polyamory as "consensually non-monogamous", I think the consensual aspect of polyamory is significant enough to warrant a distinct word.

                But I think Gina, it would be useful to find a way of defining another term that meant a non-monogamous relationship style that is based on emotional and sexual attachment. I think that also qualifies as a distinct relational style. So, how about ethical non-monogamy for consensual non-monogamy and polyamory for non-monogamy with emotional and sexual attachment? Nah, I think it may be too late already, too many people think of poly as an anything goes kind of deal, we need a new word.
                • Re: What do you think?

                  Sat, May 30, 2009 - 6:56 PM
                  "But I think Gina, it would be useful to find a way of defining another term that meant a non-monogamous relationship style that is based on emotional and sexual attachment."

                  Well, there's "multifuckers" and "friends". I think that covers it nicely.

                  I mean, if the relationship isn't ABOUT sex, then just drop the sex and call it friends.
              • Re: What do you think?

                Sun, May 31, 2009 - 11:02 AM
                For me, there is a difference between what goes in my head and heart when I'm "swinging" and when I am in a polyamorous relationship with someone. It's not that swingers can't also be poly, or that there aren't a gazillion types of consensual non-monogamy out there (all of which I am fully in support of), but there is a difference between casual sex, or friends with benefits, and the type of connection that I think of as poly, which involves a higher degree of emotion, and responsibility/consideration with one's partner. For example, I wouldn't expect someone I fucked at a party to call me up to help them through a tough time, but I'd probably be offended if someone that I considered myself in a "poly" relationship with didn't. If I'm dragging my ass out of bed to truck someone to the airport at 4am, it better be poly!

                I can whore around with the best of them, and more people than I can count have seen me naked, but there are precious few that I'd consider part of the inner circle. "Love everyone" sounds great, but I haven't got the emotional juice for that. I'd rather love hard with the ones that count in my life, and extend common courtesy and consideration to everyone else, and sometimes that includes sex.

                So yeah, it bugs me when people call it poly if it's just fucking around. There's not a single thing to be ashamed of, or wrong with in enjoying vast quantities of consensual sex. Be slutty! Embrace your drives for pleasure! It's not always about relationships and love. That ain't poly though.
                • Re: What do you think?

                  Sun, May 31, 2009 - 3:55 PM
                  "For me, there is a difference between what goes in my head and heart when I'm "swinging" and when I am in a polyamorous relationship with someone" ... "That ain't poly though."

                  So, kinda reason #1, then?

                  "I'd probably be offended if someone that I considered myself in a "poly" relationship with didn't [call me if they were having a rough time]."

                  Er, are you SURE you wrote this right? I mean, they're having a tough time PLUS they have to deal with an offended partner...?

                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: What do you think?

                    Sun, May 31, 2009 - 7:12 PM

                    "I'd probably be offended if someone that I considered myself in a "poly" relationship with didn't [call me if they were having a rough time]."

                    Er, are you SURE you wrote this right? I mean, they're having a tough time PLUS they have to deal with an offended partner...?"

                    Meaning that if someone that is close with me didn't feel like they could call on me when they were in need, that would bother me. Being a reliable resource to those I love is an important part of being in relationship with them for me. It's not all fun and games, sex and snuggles. It's also about bringing soup when someone's sick, or picking up the kids when they're in a bind, holding them when they cry.
                    • Re: What do you think?

                      Sun, May 31, 2009 - 7:24 PM
                      There has been research showing that language affects the way we perceive things. In some languages, when a noun has a "male" or "female" designation, the associated concepts reflect that. Words count in how we think, so not taking into account that the way we process ideas is linked to the language we use leads to a lack of clarity.
                      • Re: What do you think?

                        Mon, June 1, 2009 - 11:20 AM
                        "Words count in how we think, so not taking into account that the way we process ideas is linked to the language we use leads to a lack of clarity."

                        An excellent reason why clear thinking, clear speaking, and clear writing go soooo hand-in-hand.
                    • Re: What do you think?

                      Mon, June 1, 2009 - 11:18 AM
                      "Meaning that if someone that is close with me didn't feel like they could call on me when they were in need, that would bother me. Being a reliable resource to those I love is an important part of being in relationship with them for me. It's not all fun and games, sex and snuggles. It's also about bringing soup when someone's sick, or picking up the kids when they're in a bind, holding them when they cry."

                      Well, sure, but it's their OPTION, isn't it? I mean, I sometimes struggle with things without conferring with my partners, and if/when I do, they're sympathetic and all, but I don't come in guilty of a crime right off the bat.

                      That kind of process would DISCOURAGE me from talking with my partners! (as it has in the past, and as I've seen it happen a jillion times before in other relationships)

                      When I reverse tables, I think I want to be as open as possible to my partners, but ultimately, they choose whether or not to include me in their deliberations.

                      I've got a partner now who's struggling with homework issues. This particular branch is one of my degrees, so I offer help. She struggles, and sometimes asks for help, but her struggles are hers to own. I can't see how getting offended that she doesn't ask for help could be useful or helpful in any way whatsoever.
                      • Re: What do you think?

                        Mon, June 1, 2009 - 3:33 PM
                        We may use the word "partner" a little differently, Edward. Care to define that for you?

                        Another possibility is that I'm trying to put into words something that is a bit more of a feeling, and not doing the absolute best job of it. Let me try again. Let's say my partner (this would be someone that is deeply in relationship with me, that I see frequently or live with) is having a hard time with something. If it were a something that is impacting them deeply, to the point that _their actions are affected_ (which means it is affecting me, since I'm around them so much), that is something that is leaving the realm of "optional to share". It doesn't mean that I can do more than offer an ear to listen, or make it better, but it does mean that I need to be in the loop as to what is going on.

                        I've seen people who do the: "This is my shit, and I'm going to deal with it on my own!" thing, and it isn't a preferred behavior in a close partner for me. There are people that prefer a more independent level of interaction with their partners than I do though.

                        For me, if someone that I love and care about is in pain, I at least want to know what is going on, and that's not terribly optional for any significant length of time.
                        • Re: What do you think?

                          Mon, June 1, 2009 - 5:12 PM
                          Just wondering...

                          Did Noel (the OP) actually expect to get an answer to her question?

                          Does Edward pay people to set up games of Gotcha? In which case, what's the going rate?

                          Does Gina know that responding only encourages Edward to continue with the game?

                          If you're not talking about "my polyamory," why are you using my word for it? It's mine, mine, mine!!!! Find your own goddamned word!

                          A little levity brought to you by the letters YMMV.
                          • Re: What do you think?

                            Mon, June 1, 2009 - 5:18 PM
                            I expect people to do what they usually do when the definition of polyamory v. someothersexsystem is debated. I expect at least some level of people going "It's about RELATIONSHIPS" that implies a level of superiority to prove they're not nasty sluts like THOSE people.

                            Which, in my opinion, says that plenty of people buy into our cultural norms more than they're willing to admit to themselves.
                            • Re: What do you think?

                              Mon, June 1, 2009 - 5:19 PM
                              So you posed this question merely to provide an opportunity for the expected debate? What did he pay you?
                              • Re: What do you think?

                                Mon, June 1, 2009 - 5:29 PM
                                Ma'am, I don't like it when people talk to me like that and I'd like it if you didn't do it again, please.
                                • Re: What do you think?

                                  Mon, June 1, 2009 - 6:46 PM
                                  Ma'am??? I think you've got me confused with a Domme or perhaps your maiden aunt.
                                  • Re: What do you think?

                                    Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:55 AM
                                    Objecting to being addressed by a polite honorific tells me everything I think I need to know about you. Sorry to have tried to interact.
                                    • Re: What do you think?

                                      Tue, June 2, 2009 - 10:03 AM
                                      Huh? That response was pretty obviously meant to be diffusing, since there were apparently some ruffled feathers. At least that was my take. Of course, I've had the benefit of actually meeting the poster IRL as well.

                                      I don't think Barbara is alone in wondering why you appear to be upset. What about the original post from her bothered you? It seems very tame compared to many things posted by others that you seem unbothered by. This is a little confusing.
                                      • Re: What do you think?

                                        Tue, June 2, 2009 - 10:13 AM
                                        I don't like being accused of being someone's stooge. As fond of Edward as I am, I am completely offended at the idea that I need someone with testicles instigating an action.

                                        The whole objecting to honorifics thing? Socially speaking that generally maps to other behaviors I don't care to interact with.
                                        • Re: What do you think?

                                          Tue, June 2, 2009 - 3:48 PM
                                          Thanks for the clarification.

                                          While I don't know that I agree with those interpretations, it's totally within your purview, of course.
                                        • Re: What do you think?

                                          Tue, June 2, 2009 - 8:26 PM
                                          "As fond of Edward as I am, I am completely offended at the idea that I need someone with testicles instigating an action. "

                                          This is not to say I couldn't possibly goad you into something, but yeah, I think once someone's suggesting it, they've kinda decided that they don't want to contribute to the discussion.
                                          • Re: What do you think?

                                            Wed, June 3, 2009 - 12:43 PM
                                            "This is not to say I couldn't possibly goad you into something, but yeah, I think once someone's suggesting it, they've kinda decided that they don't want to contribute to the discussion."

                                            Of course you could (have, in fact, urged me to do things I clearly WANTED to do...)

                                            What I don't like is that I was being treated as a non-independent thinker. It's a button.

                                            Frankly I'm still also glad I retreated to formality instead of being trashy and flaming, but hey, values about such things differ. ;) I don't think some people understand what formality is FOR.
                              • Re: What do you think?

                                Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:37 AM
                                "So you posed this question merely to provide an opportunity for the expected debate?"

                                She specifically asked WHY it was important. The world seems full of people who think it IS important, but not a lot of reasons WHY. I've found three -- would be intrigued to see if there were more.

                                Do you think questioning reasons is useful or not useful?
                          • Re: What do you think?

                            Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:34 AM
                            "Did Noel (the OP) actually expect to get an answer to her question?"

                            It would be great to see an answer that isn't one of the three I listed above.

                            I expect that's why she asked WHY.

                            "Does Gina know that responding only encourages Edward to continue with the game?"

                            Which game, exactly? I see something that intrigues me, and I ask about it.
                          • Re: What do you think?

                            Wed, June 3, 2009 - 7:18 AM
                            "Does Gina know that responding only encourages Edward to continue with the game?"

                            Gina thinks that the loudest voice shouldn't be the only one that gets air time.
                        • Re: What do you think?

                          Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:31 AM
                          "Let's say my partner (this would be someone that is deeply in relationship with me, that I see frequently or live with) is having a hard time with something. If it were a something that is impacting them deeply, to the point that _their actions are affected_ (which means it is affecting me, since I'm around them so much), that is something that is leaving the realm of "optional to share". It doesn't mean that I can do more than offer an ear to listen, or make it better, but it does mean that I need to be in the loop as to what is going on."

                          Yes, I understand. But sometimes that doesn't happen, or a person doesn't know that their struggle is bleeding over to other people in their lives.

                          So, now there's a partner, and they've been struggling with something and maybe they do or don't know if it's affecting those around them, and finally they start talking with others and they are met with... ...offended sensibilities.

                          This trains them to NOT speak up in the future. Speaking up means that in addition to their own hassles, now they have to deal with a partner's offense as well. Two great tastes that taste shitty together.

                          Having had many partners and seen lots of other things going on, the lower the drama quotient, the better, especially in times of stress. I cannot imagine how me being offended would help a struggling partner in any way whatsoever. I just can't. Does it help them feel better? Does it help them deal with their problem? Does it let them feel as if they've connected with a solid support system? Are they happier? Do they have better tools for dealing with their problems in the future? What advantage to the system does personal offense lend?
                          • Re: What do you think?

                            Tue, June 2, 2009 - 1:33 PM
                            If something is bleeding over onto me, I let my partner know. Order of operations: Always give options to improve/share before taking anything personally. Sounds like you're putting them in inverse order. They talk with me, we plug in and pull on the same team, even if that means I'm giving them space.

                            I can see your point about adding to someone's problems, but the whole hypothetical issue of my feeling offended hasn't come up in 15 years of relationships, so I'm going to say the odds of that happening are so low as to be a non-issue.
                            • Re: What do you think?

                              Tue, June 2, 2009 - 8:40 PM
                              "Order of operations: Always give options to improve/share before taking anything personally. Sounds like you're putting them in inverse order"

                              No, no, just going by this: "I'd probably be offended if someone that I considered myself in a "poly" relationship with didn't [call me if they were having a rough time]."

                              Did I misunderstand your if-then?

                              "I can see your point about adding to someone's problems, but the whole hypothetical issue of my feeling offended hasn't come up in 15 years of relationships, so I'm going to say the odds of that happening are so low as to be a non-issue."

                              Ah, it's hypothetical.

                              Well, still, I can't see how it can be even hypothetically helpful, but, as I've seen it in real life, I can assure you when it's not hypothetical, it can be well worth terminating a relationship (non-hypothetically, that is). Opens up a fat-ass pathway for emotional blackmail you could drive a Giant Cheese Wedge through. Histrionics are for the birds. Good thing it's only hypothetical for you!
                              • Re: What do you think?

                                Wed, June 3, 2009 - 12:02 AM
                                Edward says "She specifically asked WHY it was important. The world seems full of people who think it IS important, but not a lot of reasons WHY. I've found three -- would be intrigued to see if there were more. "

                                I've read all of Noel's posts up to that response and there is no 'specifically asked WHY" anywhere to be found. Nor is there a specifically WHY after that.

                                Apparently I have offended her by suggesting the payment of coin of the realm for setting up this discussion in which you, Edward, take the lead. Let's just forget about following the money then. I don't see how this has anything to do with your testicles however.

                                I'll admit, it was a crude suggestion to hint bribery was involved. Don't know how that inspires someone to call me "Ma'am" and ask me to quit joining in the game being played. And to respond with some vague statement of how an objection says all sorts of things about me. That's lame.

                                Just saying. Fun game if no-one gets seriously hurt. Play on!
                                • Re: What do you think?

                                  Wed, June 3, 2009 - 11:41 AM
                                  "I've read all of Noel's posts up to that response and there is no 'specifically asked WHY" anywhere to be found. Nor is there a specifically WHY after that. "

                                  Sorry, my bad -- I was thinking of a different question.

                                  In regards to the question above, I'm sticking with what I originally wrote.

                                  "Apparently I have offended her by suggesting the payment of coin of the realm for setting up this discussion in which you, Edward, take the lead"

                                  Well, yes, by doing so, you've suggested she is not an independent thinker. Exacerbated it by suggesting she let a MAN influence her. So, yeah (although Noel, please correct me if I'm wrong).

                                  I mean, if you posed a question and someone else suggested you did it only because you were influenced by some guy, there's a chance you would find that insulting.

                                  As far as me taking the "lead", well, there are lots of people, and lots of them responding to lots of threads.
                                  • Re: What do you think?

                                    Thu, June 4, 2009 - 11:27 PM
                                    "As far as me taking the "lead", well, there are lots of people, and lots of them responding to lots of threads. "

                                    But you are the only one who always has THE answer, all the time, every time. So it's not surprising that a few feathers might get ruffled from time to time.

                                    It must be tough being a sage. :-)

                                    Still,l I (mostly) enjoy your input. When I don't I simply view the odd rant that pushes buttons as a great opportunity to remind myself to take a deep breath (or 3...).

                                    • Re: What do you think?

                                      Mon, June 8, 2009 - 8:31 PM
                                      "But you are the only one who always has THE answer, all the time, every time."

                                      I think if you want to start a thread about how I "always" "every time" do something, you might want to start it yourself, instead of hijacking.

                                      If you are simply grumbling because I answer often and with some semblance of literacy, then my best advice is to catch up and engage, or hang it all and grow posies. I see no reason to NOT respond, or to respond with minimal capacity solely to appease grumbling.

                                      If you think I see my purpose as pushing buttons, I can suggest you're missing my points -- although you are welcome to ask if you're not sure.

                              • Re: What do you think?

                                Wed, June 3, 2009 - 7:41 AM
                                "No, no, just going by this: "I'd probably be offended if someone that I considered myself in a "poly" relationship with didn't [call me if they were having a rough time]."

                                That's pretty accurate, with the addition of the ideas that A) Their behavior is affecting those around them, including me. B) They fit my definition of being a "partner" and C) They've been asked about it, been made _aware_ that condition A is occuring, and are _still_ going it alone.

                                Fortunately, none of my partners have ever had their head up their ass far enough that they aren't willing to share what is going on, once they've been made aware of condition A, or they've made it a point to modify their behavior so it isn't impacting their loved ones. Maybe I'm just lucky. Maybe I do a good job of being approachable and am a good listener.

                                We all have times where events can impact our behavior, but once there is awareness of that, it seems pretty reasonable to work on that, or make it understandable to those you're affecting.

                                Maybe some of my perspective here is coming from being a mom. As a parent, having your head up your ass far enough to be non-functional, or snapping the kids head's off because of an outside issue isn't an option. At the least I expect myself to be self- aware enough to say: "Mom is having a really rough day. It isn't anything to do with you. These are the ways you can help me today.".
                                If that's something my kids deserve, it's something my partners deserve, with the additional level of information that their greater capacity can handle.

                                If it was something REALLY huge where I couldn't control my own behavior, and wasn't willing to share _WHY_ I was acting this way, hypothetically, I'd remove myself from the people that love me until that was no longer the case. Acting out in that fashion is both immature and selfish on a grand scale (and not the "good" kind of selfish where you are nurturing yourself).
                                • Re: What do you think?

                                  Wed, June 3, 2009 - 11:50 AM
                                  "That's pretty accurate, with the addition of the ideas that A) Their behavior is affecting those around them, including me. B) They fit my definition of being a "partner" and C) They've been asked about it, been made _aware_ that condition A is occuring, and are _still_ going it alone. "

                                  Oh, with the addition...

                                  Okay, A was not originally implied, so that would change it to (paraphrasing) you would be (hypothetically) offended if a partner's actions/reactions to something in their private life affected their interaction with you.

                                  B is, as far as I can tell, a method of determining who you get offended at (level of offense seems proportional to closeness of partner)

                                  C is a SIGNIFICANT condition that switches the cause-and-effect. If C is true, then you are already aware of the situation, you have already informed them of something related to it, yet they are refusing your help. That is much different than the original statement.

                                  So, with the new changes:

                                  If a partner is doing something cranky on you, and you call them on it and they refuse to do anything about it, then, yeah, sure, most people would say you had reason to retaliate.

                                  I still maintain it helps nothing, however.
                                  • Re: What do you think?

                                    Wed, June 3, 2009 - 6:47 PM
                                    I think both of us have been making assumptions about where the other person is coming from. Context counts, and in this case A, B and C were all part of my mindset because that's just the way I roll.

                                    Getting pissy at someone for behavior that they are unaware of, while absorbed in their own pain, is so ridiculous that it wouldn't even occur to me that it might have been read that way. I guess that speaks more to the fact that those sorts of issues haven't come up for me, so they're off my radar.
                                    • Re: What do you think?

                                      Wed, June 3, 2009 - 9:56 PM
                                      "...is so ridiculous that it wouldn't even occur to me that it might have been read that way. "

                                      Yep -- that's why I asked.
                                      • Re: What do you think?

                                        Wed, June 3, 2009 - 10:00 PM
                                        ...although truth be told, I've seen it a LOT. On practically every list I've been on, that exact behavior pops up, as told by someone. Had someone try that on me several times in the past, including someone who felt that the day after my Dad's funeral was the best time to lay into me.

                                        So, clarity's a good thing.
                                • Re: What do you think?

                                  Wed, June 3, 2009 - 11:55 AM
                                  "As a parent, having your head up your ass far enough to be non-functional, or snapping the kids head's off because of an outside issue isn't an option. At the least I expect myself to be self- aware enough to say: "Mom is having a really rough day. It isn't anything to do with you. These are the ways you can help me today."."

                                  But, it's acceptable for the kids in this situation to be offended, as per the description above, right? I mean, if your struggles bleed over onto them, if you snap or something at them, AND you are aware of why, AND you've informed them of this condition, then you've fulfilled all the conditions necessary for them to be offended/put off/etc. by your behavior. Same dynamic if a partner says "I'm having a shitty day and dealing with rough stuff and I might snap" and then does so. This is that hypothetical situation, right?
            • Re: What do you think?

              Sat, May 30, 2009 - 6:52 PM
              "So, who gets to define polyamory? And why would we be defining it?"

              Well, the question is important to some folks. Like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

              "If we make polyamory too inclusive do we make it less capable of carrying a communicative punch?"

              If the goal is punching people, why not call it "multicocking" or "multcunting"?
              • Re: What do you think?

                Sat, May 30, 2009 - 7:25 PM
                Oh fine, just because it was some shoddy writing you're going to mc all over it?! ;-)
                • Re: What do you think?

                  Sat, May 30, 2009 - 7:57 PM
                  "Oh fine, just because it was some shoddy writing you're going to mc all over it?! ;-)"

                  No, no, it's important to know WHY we are attempting to communicate the thing we're communicating. This is where practically ALL of these "term" discussion break down.

                  I'll posit that there are only three reasons why people think fiddling with terms are important:

                  1. Just because I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, dammit (hey, everyone needs their security blankets).

                  2. Because I don't want to be mistaken as one of THEM (usually the distinction is lost on the listener anyway, at BEST, but it does reveal fun things about the speaker).

                  3. Because the speaker has trouble communicating in a meaningful fashion on this topic (by behavior or example, for instance).

                  So far, #2 has been the clear winner when I've encountered this sort of thing in the past, but #1 and #3 are also very popular. Often, it's some combination of all three, or some other subset.

                  Now it would be great, and very interesting, if someone was able to pony up a reason that wasn't one of these three. I would like that very much.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: What do you think?

                    Sat, May 30, 2009 - 8:01 PM
                    >Now it would be great, and very interesting, if someone was able to pony up a reason that wasn't one of these three. I would like that very much. <

                    Here, here.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: What do you think?

                    Sat, May 30, 2009 - 8:05 PM
                    Well, you don't think it could be to facilitate communication? Or is that what you mean by #3?

                    For example, if I want to fool around but I don't have the emotion or time for a deep emotional attachment my ears perk up when I hear the word swinger but if I'm feeling like I need a deep soulful (sexual) connection where I can really explore the intricacies of interpersonal intimacy swinger does not grab my attention, then I'm listening for something else.

                    But again, maybe that's what you mean by #3.
                    • Re: What do you think?

                      Sat, May 30, 2009 - 9:52 PM
                      "Well, you don't think it could be to facilitate communication? Or is that what you mean by #3"

                      There's a difference between explaining what you want (given the context and so forth) and explaining how important it is that you not be mistaken for someone else.

                      "For example, if I want to fool around but I don't have the emotion or time for a deep emotional attachment my ears perk up when I hear the word swinger but if I'm feeling like I need a deep soulful (sexual) connection where I can really explore the intricacies of interpersonal intimacy swinger does not grab my attention, then I'm listening for something else."

                      When what you want changes, you look for, or request something else. This is normal.

                      When you identify "swinger" as not keen on "deep emotional attachment", or reject "swinger" as possibly offering an exploration of "intricacies of interpersonal intimacy" then you've stepped into a different place. Now me, I know a few people who would readily self-identify as "swinger" and reject the rest of that.

                      In reference to the basenote, people have the right to self-identify any damn way they please, and I'm not particularly in a rush to tell them "you can't be in my little club." Noel set the question up perfectly, that the people involved are engaged in a relationship and she did not say anyone was lying, or even assume or suggest or hint at it. All the crap about lying and distrust came from other people.

                      Folks can engage in whatever relationship they want. That's plain ol' human sexuality. If you want a label, label the WEIRD outlier shit, such as "sexual restrictiveness" and then figure out which BRAND of sexual restrictiveness it is.

                      I get suspicious of anyone too keen to start strapping labels on other folks in a mad rush to exclude them from the club.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: What do you think?

                    Sat, May 30, 2009 - 8:10 PM
                    "Now it would be great, and very interesting, if someone was able to pony up a reason that wasn't one of these three. I would like that very much. "

                    I guess it's probably not a great reason, but I like playing with words. I think polyamory is a great word, I'd love to come up with a new one.
                    • Re: What do you think?

                      Sat, May 30, 2009 - 9:56 PM
                      "I guess it's probably not a great reason, but I like playing with words. I think polyamory is a great word, I'd love to come up with a new one."

                      Human sexuality.

                      Think of it as a hierarchy. At the top is just plain ol' human sexuality. Below that are all the different flavors. Like ice cream. There's ice cream, and then there's strawberry ice cream and blueberry ice cream and so forth.

                      So, for human sexuality, the flavors might be various restrictions or characteristics. So, for example, "human relationships -- only with people I love" or "human relationships -- only with one person a at a time" or "human relationships, but only with people with a certain kind of plumbing".
        • Re: What do you think?

          Sat, May 30, 2009 - 1:49 PM
          Generally, a "Don't ask, don't tell" relationship is specifically negotiated beforehand. Meaning, it as been explicitly stated, "Yes, you may form other relationships if you wish, but I will not ask about them, nor do I wish to to be told about them."
          • Re: What do you think?

            Sat, May 30, 2009 - 2:07 PM
            I'm aware of a few mono/poly relationships that have put a time-limited DADT agreement into place with a renegotiating procedure afterwards. They've used this as a 'pressure-release' for the poly partner while the mono partner is trying to figure out whether he/she is up for poly.

            One couple in particular been up doing this for at least six years now, so I guess it works for them. Whether it's 'poly' is open to debate. They've been doing it longer than the term 'polyamorous' has been current here in Europe so I guess the label isn't so important to them....
            • Re: What do you think?

              Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:07 AM
              "One couple in particular been up doing this for at least six years now, so I guess it works for them. Whether it's 'poly' is open to debate. They've been doing it longer than the term 'polyamorous' has been current here in Europe so I guess the label isn't so important to them...."

              And to me that's sorta the root of the debate. People that have been doing open relationships/poly/non-monogamy a looong time maybe aren't as rigid and hung up on labels and terms or the need to define themselves. The label isn't important in forming relationships and the label means something different everyone, especially a label like polyamory, which will probably take a few more decades to define in a way enough people can agree on.

              It's funny, in the punk community I see the same crap, only it's different labels. People argue over what punk, DIY, independent, sellout and unity all really mean... and there are both generational and cultural viewpoints. Ultimately they are just labels used to facilitate conversation and know who's in the same ballpark as you, not who thinks exactly the same as you or lives their live exactly the same as you. And it tends to be the newest converts that embrace the labels the hardest, seeking to define them and have rigid categories, in part to prove how much they fit a given label and others don't. I guess they can feel they have to prove themselves to some extent. It's a funny game that goes on in most "alternative" subcultures.
              • Re: What do you think?

                Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:52 AM
                "It's funny, in the punk community I see the same crap, only it's different labels."

                Yep. I see the same thing in other sub-communities as well.

                "And it tends to be the newest converts that embrace the labels the hardest, seeking to define them and have rigid categories, in part to prove how much they fit a given label and others don't. I guess they can feel they have to prove themselves to some extent. It's a funny game that goes on in most "alternative" subcultures. "

                I have observed this as well.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Mon, June 1, 2009 - 8:08 AM
    Heh, this thread is a perfect example of why I explain what I mean when I say polyamory to a potential lover.
    • Re: What do you think?

      Mon, June 1, 2009 - 9:42 AM
      Absolutely! It would be nice if there were an agreed on definition, but there are as many variations on that as there are polyamorous people, so clarification and personalization are important.
    • Re: What do you think?

      Mon, June 1, 2009 - 11:21 AM
      "why I explain what I mean when I say polyamory "

      I have found it saves time to skip the vocabulary and just say what I mean.
      • Re: What do you think?

        Mon, June 1, 2009 - 11:37 AM
        "I have found it saves time to skip the vocabulary and just say what I mean."

        Well, my overall hope is to explain what I mean and then be able to use the term in the future. ;)
        • Re: What do you think?

          Mon, June 1, 2009 - 6:58 PM
          In our discussions. Polyamory defines that we are searching for a wife. If you want sex without an emotional attachment, then I beleive the word for that already exists: swinger/swinging.
          As someone who is new to Poly, I'm finding that the differences between Poly and Swinging (in the US at least) are very blurred. It seems that to be "Poly" is almost a licence to have sex with whoever you want. We went to a Poly get together on Sunday night and it was mostly long term relationships, people had settled down and were by and large not into spreading themselves over three or more relationships.

          When I told my mother what Selina and I are doing, I simply told her that we are looking for a wife. We have consistently posted that we are not looking for the promiscuous or the already involved. So perhaps we are not Poly at all.

          Edward: I think you play word games. I also happen to think that this behaviour doesn't help.
          • Re: What do you think?

            Mon, June 1, 2009 - 7:44 PM
            There are differences in common usage, even in the same country. What you are describing would fit with my definition of a polyfidelitous arrangement, where it's a closed circle of more than two people in relationship with each other. Many of the people that I see around here that are polyamorous have serious long-term relationships that are deeply emotional, but are also open to less restrictions on their sexuality with outside parties.

            It's good that you both know what you are interested in. Best of luck in finding a great fit!
          • Re: What do you think?

            Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:49 AM
            "If you want sex without an emotional attachment, then I beleive the word for that already exists: swinger/swinging"

            Belief is a powerful thing. It kinda has to be because reality often contradicts it.

            "When I told my mother what Selina and I are doing, I simply told her that we are looking for a wife."

            Usually a pretty straightforward term. Probably needs less additional strap-on baggage than a longer more complicated word -- except for those folks that think of "wife" as the one-and-only.

            "We have consistently posted that we are not looking for the promiscuous or the already involved. So perhaps we are not Poly at all. "

            Hey, if you're specific about what you're looking for, then more power to you. I knew a couple who wanted exactly one female to cook and clean and help raise their kids, and who must not ever be involved with anyone else ever, but equally involved with them emotionally and sexually. I'll grant them they knew what they wanted, and wished 'em luck. Who knows, maybe they found someone like that. But there was no lingo involved. Lingo obscures.

            As far as self-identification goes, you can be whatever you decide to call yourself, I expect.

            "Edward: I think you play word games. I also happen to think that this behaviour doesn't help."

            I advocate clarity, simplicity, and mutual clear communication amongst partners and other people. I'm also a strong proponent of relationships that are adult in their sensibilities, well-bounded, and so forth. When I see things that appear to interfere with that, I ask about 'em. Who knows -- sometimes I miss things.

            If you think this "doesn't help" please be more specific with what you think it's not helping, exactly.
        • Re: What do you think?

          Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:22 AM
          "Well, my overall hope is to explain what I mean and then be able to use the term in the future. ;)"

          Seems like a lot more work, but it's up to you.
          • Re: What do you think?

            Tue, June 2, 2009 - 10:37 AM
            "Seems like a lot more work, but it's up to you."

            Not so much. If it started turning into too much work then I'd go ahead and change what I'm doing.

            Not that I do it particularly often since it's usually involved in the whole "how I view love" conversation.
            • Re: What do you think?

              Tue, June 2, 2009 - 8:23 PM
              "Not that I do it particularly often since it's usually involved in the whole "how I view love" conversation."

              Well, if it's basically hypothetical, it can be as complicated as you like. 8)
    • Re: What do you think?

      Tue, June 2, 2009 - 9:11 AM
      "Heh, this thread is a perfect example of why I explain what I mean when I say polyamory to a potential lover. "

      It's why I don't even say polyamory unless they are poly. No one else has a clue what it means, even a lot of people in non-monogamous relationships. I usually say "open relationship," because it's something anyone can understand, it's not like speaking a foreign language to them. I only use the word poly when talking to other poly people.
      • Re: What do you think?

        Tue, June 2, 2009 - 10:05 AM
        " I only use the word poly when talking to other poly people."

        I'm curious. What word(s) do you use when talking to people who aren't 'poly' then when trying to describe 'poly'?
        • Re: What do you think?

          Tue, June 2, 2009 - 10:21 AM
          This brings up an interesting point.

          I had the occasion to speak to someone who knew an ex partner. I mentioned I knew the person and was asked how I did. I said the person was an ex spouse.

          This guy rolled his eyes and said, "Yeah, they spent a long time explaining that to me." The body language made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt he didn't CARE how their private lives were ordered and frankly didn't WANT it explained.

          I know I am totally guilty of oversharing and trying to be a Voice for Poly. You wanna talk waving the poly flag, trying to freak out the mundanes? Oh was my quad guilty of that nonsense and big time. I wish to goodness I could say I didn't do that, because it's embarrassing to look at now. But I did and have to own that.

          I realize now how rarely it is that it's necessary to explain one's life to anyone. As far as putting the concept out there? My Misanthrope column and discussion groups are plenty. People who are interested will read the columns or enter the discussions, and that's really good enough. For my PRIVATE life? Unless I'm about to form a relationship with you, it's not necessary to know I'm married, my husband has a girlfriend, I have an FWB, and me and FWB have threesomes with HIS partner and....

          Make sense?
          • Re: What do you think?

            Tue, June 2, 2009 - 11:08 AM
            Edward: The word games. My use of the word "believe". You can see it is used in a conventional manner and not in a religious sense.
            I think that "Poly" is about as useful a word as we are going to get.

            Apart from telling the "nearest and dearest" we intend to let people simply connect the dots. We have a friend who is Pentecostal and we intend to let her draw her own conclusions when she sees three sets of pillows in our bed. Engage in banner waving and you will be misunderstood. There is a clear dichotomy in society. I live with two 20 somethings, I'm a stud. Noel you live with two men, you're a slut. So we will answer direct questions about our domestic situation until then it's amazing what people will successfully ignore even when it is right in front of them and glaringly obvious.

            Edward: As far as that remark about someone to help around the house....you are talking to the househusband.

            We also happen to think that with patience and a lot of advertising/makingour presence known that we will find our nice bi girl.
            At the moment we are trying for a baby...we eat the right foods, we exercise, we make love. For the nice girl...we eat the right foods, we exercise and we advertise.
            • Re: What do you think?

              Tue, June 2, 2009 - 8:31 PM
              "My use of the word "believe". You can see it is used in a conventional manner and not in a religious sense. "

              You believe there is a difference.

              "I think that "Poly" is about as useful a word as we are going to get."

              I strongly disagree, for a variety of reasons not all of which are connected to this thread. I think underscoring how "poly" is "better" than "swinging" is no better than someone saying "yes, I'm a lesbian, but I form long-term relationships of love -- I'm not some slutty dyke." It's just been tarted up with some lipstick.

              "As far as that remark about someone to help around the house....you are talking to the househusband."

              Reading comprehension -- ur doing it wrong.

              "We also happen to think that with patience and a lot of advertising/makingour presence known that we will find our nice bi girl."

              Good luck with that.

              This chart might be helpful:
              polyamory.tribe.net/thread/2...38d1ec0d5
          • Re: What do you think?

            Tue, June 2, 2009 - 8:22 PM
            "This guy rolled his eyes and said, "Yeah, they spent a long time explaining that to me." The body language made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt he didn't CARE how their private lives were ordered and frankly didn't WANT it explained. "

            In my experience, most folks seem to prefer figuring some stuff out on their own, and a few small answers.

            If I had a million dollars for every time someone sat down and asked "Okay, could you explain this, please, and give me lots of vocabulary, and explain how it's better than someone else?"...

            ...I'd still be dirt-poor.
        • Re: What do you think?

          Tue, June 2, 2009 - 11:39 AM
          Like I said, I usually say open relationship(s). I'm generally not trying to describe poly to non-poly folks, I only describe my own relationship style. Since people define poly so many different ways, I'd rather just talk about what works for me and let others handle telling what works for them.
  • Re: What do you think?

    Thu, June 4, 2009 - 1:24 PM
    I remember being introduced to the concept of polyamory in my Junior year in high school. One of my good friends (several years my senior) was married, openly poly, and dating two men outside of her husband at the time. Her husband insisted on explaining the dynamics of their relationship to me when we first met, and I understood it perfectly at the time.

    Eventually I was talking with my brother about the problems my friend was getting with one of her boyfriends, which my mother unfortunately overheard. I had to explain the dynamic of my friend's relationship to her, which lead to Mother openly disapproving of not only my friends marriage and relationships, but also my friendship with that friend.

    Angry, I saw my friend later that week and told her, "My mother doesn't approve of the kind of marriage you have."

    To which she responded, "I don't think it's any of her business."

    And that's kinda how I've been operating. Only a handful of people outside of the existing poly/alt community know that my gf and I are poly, mainly because they don't really need to know. She's opened up about her relationship with me to her parents, but both my g/f and I know that MY parents wouldn't be able to handle it.

    That being said, I think that if you are telling the people you are opening yourself up to relationship wise don't ask/don't tell about your other partners, that's kind of a red flag issue for me.
    • Re: What do you think?

      Sat, June 6, 2009 - 11:45 AM
      We seem to be in a very similar place to where the Gay communities were about 20 years ago. We mention our lifetsyle choices and half the community tells us we're going to purgatory, the other half couldn't give a shit. So we tell/come out to only a select few.
      So for now until the Media decides Poly "Is The Next Big Thing", we do what we do and try to stay under teh radar.
      • Re: What do you think?

        Mon, June 8, 2009 - 8:34 PM
        "So for now until the Media decides Poly "Is The Next Big Thing", we do what we do and try to stay under teh radar."

        Don't ask, don't tell?

Recent topics in "Polyamory"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
a new poly connection offlineCapt 5 Today, 8:33 PM
Holiday plans for Poly folks? Teresa 1 Yesterday, 12:32 PM
can i complain to the choir for a moment? Mizztrish 7 December 18, 2009
Looking in Central IL gary 0 December 6, 2009