Mulling something over

[treeskin]

sidhe612 made an interesting comment last time we talked on the phone; it's been floating in my head since, trying to crystallize. Let's see if this gets anywhere close.

A lot of our friends are poly, in one form or another. A certain group of our friends were beginning to explore poly, and it developed into a very long, messy crisis. sidhe612 suggested that perhaps part of the crisis came from the examples of poly practices he had noticed within our community. This made me think about choices By & I had made, and how they might look from outside our head space.

For instance, at Laid-Back Labor Day, 2002, I had a fling with one of the guys in our camp, and By took advantage of the time to enjoy one of our female friends. We both knew about the arrangements ahead of time, no big deal to us, much fun was had by all. And again, at the same event this year, By spent some quality time with friends of ours who'd made a long trip to see us, and I'd picked up a new "pet".

Now, of these four connections, only the one with Pet was a spur-of-the-moment, he's-cute-why-not sort of thing; and I've made an effort to build more of a connection with Pet since (hence my head cold this week). But I can see where the others, if you didn't pay attention to time we spent with the various people beforehand, could look like sport-fucking. (Yes, for the record, the first night with Pet was sport. )

So now, I'm wondering if we should change our behavior so our intent is more clear. Not just because of our friend who's having the crisis, but I wonder if others in our community are seeing the same things in our behaviors.


Something else our friend in the crisis hasn't seemed to catch is the concept of boundaries and permission. He's looked at both as control issues, and seems to me to be very defensive about them. He didn't notice, before my sport with Pet took place, that first I talked to Byron, then Pet talked to Byron--in public, in front of the whole camp. I've been told others in camp noticed, and applauded Pet's manners. But our friend doesn't seem to have caught the lesson that a few simple questions, and honest answers, can keep feelings from being hurt.

Guess I need to think some more.

Comments

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

My thoughts.

You have absolutely no control over people who are going to watch what you do, perceive it wrongly, and use that as justification to behave in ways they want to anyway. If you start worrying about how people are perceiving what you do, you'll end up never doing anything. People who know you know what you're like and how your relationship works, and that's really the important part.

If you start trying to be stand-up guys "for the community", well, A) you're not going to succeed, because the community is nothing like monolithic, and B) because you'll be compromising personal and pair-bond values, you are more, not less, likely to really screw up and doing things that might hurt your relationship.

If people want to know, they should ask. If they don't want to ask, they shouldn't pretend to know.

And the idea that X and Y are justifying their behavior in their marriage based on what they think they saw you guys doing is ridiculous. First of all, they have nothing like your time-on-task, and second, they started out not communicating, cheating, and doing things foolishly or deliberately (or both) that would damage their relationship.

There is no single set of rules that can comprehensively promise success in a poly relationship, because every person is different, every circumstance is different, and while there are a few guiding principles that can help a couple (or more) establish a firm foundation that will let their relationship seek its own level while remaining healthy, open, and intimate, these are guiding principles,not rules. The rules come from how a couple apply those principles to their own relationship, and are individual and personal for a couple.

I will touch briefly on boundaries and permission, and Y's view of them as control. I think I need to take some serious thought before I make a long post on them, but I will say two things. First, this is a really common view in the poly community right now. He'll find a lot of supportive writing on the subject, which will give various reasons in support of this outlook that boil down to a selfish refusal to not do anything you really want to do, no matter what. And second, I think it's a copout.

[treeskin.livejournal.com]

It's more of a "hmmmm, I ought to think about that." Because sidhe612 made the point over and over again on the phone that Y was seeing what he wanted to see, in our dealings with other partners, and in other couples' dealings. She felt, and X has said similar, that Y wasn't paying attention to the negotiation/notificaiton interactions, just the "go get laid" parts. And you know that if she and X are agreeing on something, it ought to be looked at closely.

If you start trying to be stand-up guys "for the community", well, A) you're not going to succeed, because the community is nothing like monolithic, and B) because you'll be compromising personal and pair-bond values, you are more, not less, likely to really screw up and doing things that might hurt your relationship.
When I was saying "our community" I was refering mainly to Heretic Camp, or whatever's left of it at this point. But you're right.

And the idea that X and Y are justifying their behavior in their marriage based on what they think they saw you guys doing is ridiculous. First of all, they have nothing like your time-on-task, and second, they started out not communicating, cheating, and doing things foolishly or deliberately (or both) that would damage their relationship.
My perception is that it's mostly Y who's justifying his behavior. X has said to me that she could have handled things better in the beginning, but now is what she has to work with, so she's trying. *shakes head* You kow, neither of them can give us a good answer as to why they got married in the first place. Kinda like asking my sister.....

I will touch briefly on boundaries and permission, and Y's view of them as control.
Something I keep trying to get across to Y, with little success so far, is looking at boundaries and permission not as control, but as respect and consideration and all the other social lubrications that allow us to function beside each other. I think it did sink in, as far as the leaving notes when he was at the apartment goes, but I don't think he'll carry that thought into anything else.

What I've tried to tell Y is that, no matter how rude and incosiderate I am of other people I interact with, there is one person on this planet whose good will and opinion matters greatly to me, and that one person I will not allow myself to take for granted. So, between me & By, it's not control, it's an expression of that consideration.

Not sure I'm making too much sense. I'm still on cold medicine today, and feeling a bit loopy. I expect my writing's a bit loopy too.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

I think you've probably done about as much thinking as you ought about it. :) Yes, people might misinterpret things they see or hear. This is not a new danger. How about the people who think you're mog right up until they see you holding hands with someone else in the bookstore? They're probably going to leap to an incorrect conclusion. I don't really care, personally, about that sort of thing. I can't. Because caring about it would mean that I would need to change my behavior based on what people I don't know and don't care about might think, and I'm not willing to live my life with Mrs McGillicuddy staring over my shoulder. That is too small-town, too middle-America, too social-conservative for me. It's the tyranny of the median cultural value, and I refuse to allow it to have power over me.

I think my statement goes double for something like Heretic Camp, because frankly, if you can't trust your friends to come and ask you questions before making damaging assumptions, who can you trust? :)

My perception is that it's mostly Y who's justifying his behavior. X has said to me that she could have handled things better in the beginning, but now is what she has to work with, so she's trying. *shakes head* You kow, neither of them can give us a good answer as to why they got married in the first place. Kinda like asking my sister.....

Okay, granted that X does seem to have separated her crown and root chakras for the most part. I spoke in the heat of my first reaction, so I didn't really mean it personally. Frankly, I don't think that I myself would be inclined to do anything but make him sign divorce papers and kick him out the door, but that's me. The thing is that, if even Q won't take him back...why is X even thinking about it? I honestly don't think that Y can be trusted. The fact that he's been trying to make X think she was crazy alone would be enough for me. But then, I've been there. Remember Marty?

I've never understood that thing of people being with people and being unable to explain it. I literally just don't get it. If you don't know why you're with them, uh...why are you with them?

I fail to get it.

(Second half follows; comment was too long to post.)

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

Something I keep trying to get across to Y, with little success so far, is looking at boundaries and permission not as control, but as respect and consideration

I have had this same conversation with other people who couldn't see that limits, boundaries, veto power, etc aren't control. I think the common thread here is that first, they don't see that limits and boundaries are something you impose on yourself, rather than something your partner imposes on you. These are things that you negotiate with your partner until you reach an acceptable compromise, and I think that part of X and Y's problem is that she was looking on them as rules she could enforce on him, and he was looking at them as controls she was trying to impose on him, and they never reached an acceptable compromise: she dictated, and he said "sure" knowing in his heart that he was going to break them no matter what, so it didn't matter what he agreed to.

The problem was not one-sided, but X at least seems inclined to rethink her position and make an effort to reach some kind of mutual agreement, whereas at this point I think that anything Y says must be regarded as suspect, because I'm not sure he considers his word to be binding.

Veto power is a little trickier, and I think that everyone rationalizes it to themselves in a different way, because baldly, it is exerting a control on your partner. However, my rationalizations are as follows. First, it's mutual. Ranj and I have equal say over each other's relationships, because we recognize that our pair-bond is the most important thing in our lives. Second, it's reciprocal: Ranj has the power because I have given it to him. And vice-versa. Neither of us has tried to take that power, or impose it on one another. Ranj was in a relationship with no veto power, and I think we all know how well that went. Third, it's for the good of our relationship and we both realize that, see part the first.

And fourth, it's a way of heading off trouble. People, even experienced poly people, break up because of who their partner has slept with. It happens all the time. Agreeing on a mutual veto power is a way of saying to each other and yourselves that despite your absolute love and affection for one another and your agreement that sexual fidelity isn't a part of your relationship strategy, who you sleep with really does matter. Because it does. When you agree on a veto power, what you're doing is acknowledging that you both know that it matters, and doing what you can to make sure that even if something happens, you have control systems in place to check the consequences.

And if the anti-control, anti-veto, we're-more-enlightened-than-the-dirty-mogs crowd wants to pretend that all limits are pathological control attempts, that veto is blackmail, and that they have the absolute right to fuck whomever they choose, let the chips fall where they may...well. Okay. But they'd better not try to fuck my partner.

We're not more enlightened. We're not really more anything except different, and maybe a little bit more honest, because we don't feel the need to pretend an adherence to cultural beliefs that we don't agree with, and a little bit more mature, because we are mostly able to deal with the consequences of our feelings and ideals without having our lives blow up in our faces.

[treeskin.livejournal.com]

Okay, granted that X does seem to have separated her crown and root chakras for the most part. I spoke in the heat of my first reaction, so I didn't really mean it personally.
No offense taken. I think I tend to be pretty sympathetic towards X right now, because I feel like I've been as broken as she is right now.

Frankly, I don't think that I myself would be inclined to do anything but make him sign divorce papers and kick him out the door, but that's me. The thing is that, if even Q won't take him back...why is X even thinking about it?
Lady only knows at this point. I seriously hope Q isn't thinking about taking him back; that wouldn't be healthy. My only guess on X's viewpoint is that it's only been two weeks since the revelations began, and she's still in shock and reeling.

I honestly don't think that Y can be trusted.
Me neither, and I am very saddened by this. I had thought better of him, before, oh, July or so.

The fact that he's been trying to make X think she was crazy alone would be enough for me. But then, I've been there. Remember Marty?
This is By's viewpoint also (citing your experience with Marty, and your parents, and some of my experiences). He spent several hours trying to explain to X why he felt that the emotional manipulation was a greater betrayal than the rest. Now, I just need to get By to sit down and try to explain it to Y...X has asked By (and some of the other guys in Heretic Camp) to sit Y down and talk to him, feeling that a male perspective might be better received. I know Chuck's been trying. Cy, I think, has been trying as well, although his behavior is also somewhat suspect, so he might be seen more as a partner in crime.

[treeskin.livejournal.com]

I think the common thread here is that first, they don't see that limits and boundaries are something you impose on yourself, rather than something your partner imposes on you.

We need to include this point in our point in our poly seminar. This is a much clearer expression of what I was trying to tell Y last week.

Veto power...is exerting a control on your partner. However, my rationalizations are as follows. First, it's mutual. Ranj and I have equal say over each other's relationships, because we recognize that our pair-bond is the most important thing in our lives. Second, it's reciprocal: Ranj has the power because I have given it to him. And vice-versa. Neither of us has tried to take that power, or impose it on one another.

This too. In fact, you mind if I lift this paragraph and send it to X as food for thought?

[draco-kc.livejournal.com]

I like the way that was stated, too. Well done.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I've been thinking an awful lot about this over the past few months. The anti-veto crowd had never really obtruded on my consciousness and then suddenly they were everywhere, saying things that made me cry "No, no!" in aesthetic dismay, because the rhetoric they employ against limits and boundaries or vetos ignores the point of these relationship tools. They argue against what they perceive or believe rather than against what these things are.

Obviously I'm still in the process of developing my thoughts on the matter, but I'm starting to be able to first, state the problem and then form responses. This of course required me to really process intellectually my emotional ideas and beliefs about limits and vetos, which took some time. I think, however, that I've come to a greater understanding about how these things work, and why, and that has been very valuable for me personally, as well as providing me with a rational basis to counter the anti crowd's arguments.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

Sure, of course.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

X has asked By (and some of the other guys in Heretic Camp) to sit Y down and talk to him, feeling that a male perspective might be better received.

Frankly, I think this is a bad sign too. If Y is refusing to believe that women can have valuable perspective on things to do with love and relationships, what does this say about whether he's going to be willing to listen to X when she says "Stop, you've crossed the line"?

Perhaps Y believes that the abusive bullshit he's been engaging in is what any man would do if he had the chance, and so believes that a male perspective will be more favorable toward him, and that men shouldn't be held to a high standard of behavior?

[treeskin.livejournal.com]

I think she's looking at it as Y seeing that I and Amy (another member of Heretic Camp), being women, are more sympathetic towards herself and Q, whereas Y might see By & the other guys as "more in his camp".

*shrug*

I dunno.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

Hm. This whole situation is just fucked, you realize that. *grump*

[treeskin.livejournal.com]

Darling, I figured that out a long time ago.