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]

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.