"Stealing" people
Noel Lynne Figart
LionSerpent wrote:
>
> Is it ethical to "steal" other peoples' poly-mates?
The short answer is that one can only "steal' property and people are
not property.
>
> I've been thinking about this question recently, and found it to be a
> much trickier question to answer than I initially thought it would be.
>
> For example, if a couple is forming tenuous new-relationship bonds
> with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
> the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
> the couple?
If I were in a situation in which someone was trying to woo one of my
partners away from me and it was succeeding, I would want the partner to
leave with my blessings. I don't want someone with me who does not want
to be there.
OTOH, I have no objections to any of my partners spending time with any
other person and would prefer that a person interested in one of my
partners just enjoy a relationship without sweating it. We have a long
table and one more place at it is no big deal.
>
> Of course, the question begs for at least a couple definitions:
>
> "ethical" - a tricky word, which could be defined by different people
> anywhere on a range from "respecting polite conventions" to "in line
> with god's law". My ethics state that free choices between informed
> adults are sacrosanct. Therefore, the "stealer" and "stolen" in the
> example are technically behaving ethically, in my view.
Well, is there deceit going on? Is the "stealee" being honest with the
family being joined?
>
> "stealing" - The word implies loss, which is the case here. The
> couple lost a potential partner. If it was a more ideal situation,
> all the people involved might be open to a "poly solution", which
> would then mean no "stealing" could take place. But, since we are
> talking about adults, is it really possible to for someone exercizing
> zir right of free choice to be considered "stolen"?
Again, people are not property.
>
> My tentative answer to this opening question is that while the action
> is not technically "unethical", it is still rude and callous.
> Although I support someone's right to do a thing, I am still able to
> judge whether the kind of person who does them is someone I want to
> spend time with.
I think that this person should definately discuss the situation
honestly. I shudder to think that a member of my family would not tell
me if she wanted out.
--
Noel, Axe of the BABs, Mum to King of the Babies
and She who truly Groks Coffee.
"Oh, but I like rascals...and I can understand people like that...
But I'm not blind to what they are."
Rhett Butler "Gone with the Wind"
http://www.lordpercy.com The Pendragon Dream Factory Home Page
JennieD-O'C
LionSerpent <inv...@visi.com> wrote:
>For example, if a couple is forming tenuous new-relationship bonds
>with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
>the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
>the couple?
Unethical to come in and woo the new person? Of course not. Unethical to
deliberately take steps to make sure the other people can't be involved
with the wooee if he or she consents to being wooed? Yes, though I have
trouble imagining a poly person allowing himself or herself to be
"stolen".
If I were entering into a new relationship with someone, and another
person were making romantic overtures to my new partner, it would most
certainly make me jealous, but I wouldn't consider the behavior
objectionable.
--
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
<*> Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took both. <*>
Arnold Vance
In article <329d29a0...@news.visi.com>,
>much trickier question to answer than I initially thought it would be.
>
>with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
>the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
>the couple?
>
>
>"ethical" - a tricky word, which could be defined by different people
>anywhere on a range from "respecting polite conventions" to "in line
>with god's law". My ethics state that free choices between informed
>adults are sacrosanct. Therefore, the "stealer" and "stolen" in the
>example are technically behaving ethically, in my view.
>
>couple lost a potential partner. If it was a more ideal situation,
>all the people involved might be open to a "poly solution", which
>would then mean no "stealing" could take place. But, since we are
>talking about adults, is it really possible to for someone exercizing
>zir right of free choice to be considered "stolen"?
>
>is not technically "unethical", it is still rude and callous.
>Although I support someone's right to do a thing, I am still able to
>judge whether the kind of person who does them is someone I want to
>spend time with.
My definitive answer comes from my new work, "The Ethics of Stealing" in
which such questions are dealt with definitively. The key to the whole
theory is to never use the past tense. Thus, nothing ever becomes stolen.
But you don't want to know my theories, so let me borrow your example and
freely analyze it.
The key to the whole example is that one must look at the broader scope.
Who, exactly, are the couple involved and who is stealing? Wait, forget
them for a moment. Consider the following ideals:
1. Altruistic poly ideal. The couple you mention recognize the other person
wanting to "steal" their new love. Not being selfish and also wanting to
save the face of the other person on the verge of a "crime", they make a
gift of the new love to the other person. All parties "get" what they want.
2. Greater good ideal. The new love would be "better off" with the other
person. This could be for many reasons. The couple are bad people; the couple
are good people but would do badly with the new love; the couple are good
people but the other person is "better" (I know this is circular, my
apologies); the outward manifestations of the new love and the other person
would "benefit" mankind more--the products of their relationship causing
a better world; and so on.
3. Needy ideal. The other person needs the new love more. Since need is
recognized as paramount, everyone is satisfied.
I could go on forever. The key to the whole ball o' wax is to know when to
stop.
-arn
Stef Jones
JennieD-O'C <gr...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> wrote:
>LionSerpent <inv...@visi.com> wrote:
>>For example, if a couple is forming tenuous new-relationship bonds
>>with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
>>the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
>>the couple?
>Unethical to come in and woo the new person? Of course not. Unethical to
>deliberately take steps to make sure the other people can't be involved
>with the wooee if he or she consents to being wooed? Yes, though I have
>trouble imagining a poly person allowing himself or herself to be
>"stolen".
>
>If I were entering into a new relationship with someone, and another
>person were making romantic overtures to my new partner, it would most
>certainly make me jealous, but I wouldn't consider the behavior
>objectionable.
My ethic is a little stricter here. I don't like competition. Speaking
of secondary relationships, if I knew some people starting a new
relationship with each other, I would hesitate to get involved with
either of them at that point, if I thought it would disturb the new
relationship.
Also, if someone with whom I starting a relationship gets involved with
a third person shortly thereafter, I tend to back off somewhat.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@bayarea.net <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
There is no difference between the act of choosing and the act of
renouncing. -- Italo Calvino (translated by William Weaver)
Longshot
In article <57fg7n$1...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu>, gr...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu says...
>
>LionSerpent <inv...@visi.com> wrote:
>Unethical to come in and woo the new person? Of course not. Unethical to
>deliberately take steps to make sure the other people can't be involved
>with the wooee if he or she consents to being wooed? Yes, though I have
>trouble imagining a poly person allowing himself or herself to be
>"stolen".
>If I were entering into a new relationship with someone, and another
>person were making romantic overtures to my new partner, it would most
>certainly make me jealous, but I wouldn't consider the behavior
>objectionable.
I agree. As a personal example, a couple of months ago, Sarah and I were
officially (but gently and kindly) given our walking papers by our
girlfriend, who had recently been dating this other guy. She had more or
less been persuaded to enter into a monogamous relationship with him. I was
of course a bit depressed by this (rejections always do that, go fig), but
it was her choice, and frankly, he was in a better position to devote vast
amounts of attention to her.
My wife and I had no "hold" over her like we have over one another
(marriage), and we were deeply respectful of her freedom. She did what she
felt was the right thing for herself, and I always support such behavior.
Longshot
LionSerpent
Is it ethical to "steal" other peoples' poly-mates?
I've been thinking about this question recently, and found it to be a
much trickier question to answer than I initially thought it would be.
For example, if a couple is forming tenuous new-relationship bonds
with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
the couple?
Of course, the question begs for at least a couple definitions:
"ethical" - a tricky word, which could be defined by different people
anywhere on a range from "respecting polite conventions" to "in line
with god's law". My ethics state that free choices between informed
adults are sacrosanct. Therefore, the "stealer" and "stolen" in the
example are technically behaving ethically, in my view.
"stealing" - The word implies loss, which is the case here. The
couple lost a potential partner. If it was a more ideal situation,
all the people involved might be open to a "poly solution", which
would then mean no "stealing" could take place. But, since we are
talking about adults, is it really possible to for someone exercizing
zir right of free choice to be considered "stolen"?
My tentative answer to this opening question is that while the action
is not technically "unethical", it is still rude and callous.
Although I support someone's right to do a thing, I am still able to
judge whether the kind of person who does them is someone I want to
spend time with.
LionSerpent
--------------
"Laughter does not seem to be a sin, but it leads to sin."
-St John Chrysostom
jenner
inv...@visi.com (LionSerpent) wrote:
: Is it ethical to "steal" other peoples' poly-mates?
: I've been thinking about this question recently, and found it to be a
: much trickier question to answer than I initially thought it would be.
: For example, if a couple is forming tenuous new-relationship bonds
: with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
: the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
: the couple?
: Of course, the question begs for at least a couple definitions:
: "ethical" - a tricky word, which could be defined by different people
: anywhere on a range from "respecting polite conventions" to "in line
: with god's law". My ethics state that free choices between informed
: adults are sacrosanct. Therefore, the "stealer" and "stolen" in the
: example are technically behaving ethically, in my view.
: "stealing" - The word implies loss, which is the case here. The
: couple lost a potential partner. If it was a more ideal situation,
: all the people involved might be open to a "poly solution", which
: would then mean no "stealing" could take place. But, since we are
: talking about adults, is it really possible to for someone exercizing
: zir right of free choice to be considered "stolen"?
: My tentative answer to this opening question is that while the action
: is not technically "unethical", it is still rude and callous.
I pretty much agree, though the judgement of a "theft"
occuring and therefore it being judged rude and callous is,
of course, subjective.
Basically, I have seen people brag about 'stealing' another
person's interest. I've always considered it very tacky --
the bragging that is.
After all, how can someone steal something from you that you
don't own.
: Although I support someone's right to do a thing, I am still able to
: judge whether the kind of person who does them is someone I want to
: spend time with.
That is *exactly* it. On other newsgroups I have argued
that my judgement of another really carries no weight at
all, until they want to sleep with *me*.
Then, oh then, the POWER! Bwwwaaahahahahahahahhaah.
-- jenner
Web page peek: http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29
Alex Osinski
>>Is it ethical to "steal" other peoples' poly-mates?
>>
>>I've been thinking about this question recently, and found it to be a
>>much trickier question to answer than I initially thought it would be.
>>
>>For example, if a couple is forming tenuous new-relationship bonds
>>with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
>>the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
>>the couple?
>>
>>Of course, the question begs for at least a couple definitions:
>>
>>"ethical" - a tricky word, which could be defined by different people
>>anywhere on a range from "respecting polite conventions" to "in line
>>with god's law". My ethics state that free choices between informed
>>adults are sacrosanct. Therefore, the "stealer" and "stolen" in the
>>example are technically behaving ethically, in my view.
>>
>>"stealing" - The word implies loss, which is the case here. The
>>couple lost a potential partner. If it was a more ideal situation,
>>all the people involved might be open to a "poly solution", which
>>would then mean no "stealing" could take place. But, since we are
>>talking about adults, is it really possible to for someone exercizing
>>zir right of free choice to be considered "stolen"?
>>
>>My tentative answer to this opening question is that while the action
>>is not technically "unethical", it is still rude and callous.
>>judge whether the kind of person who does them is someone I want to
>>spend time with.
>
>which such questions are dealt with definitively. The key to the whole
>theory is to never use the past tense. Thus, nothing ever becomes stolen.
>But you don't want to know my theories, so let me borrow your example and
>freely analyze it.
>
>The key to the whole example is that one must look at the broader scope.
>Who, exactly, are the couple involved and who is stealing? Wait, forget
>them for a moment. Consider the following ideals:
>
>1. Altruistic poly ideal. The couple you mention recognize the other person
>wanting to "steal" their new love. Not being selfish and also wanting to
>save the face of the other person on the verge of a "crime", they make a
>gift of the new love to the other person. All parties "get" what they want.
>
>2. Greater good ideal. The new love would be "better off" with the other
>person. This could be for many reasons. The couple are bad people; the couple
>are good people but would do badly with the new love; the couple are good
>people but the other person is "better" (I know this is circular, my
>apologies); the outward manifestations of the new love and the other person
>would "benefit" mankind more--the products of their relationship causing
>a better world; and so on.
>
>3. Needy ideal. The other person needs the new love more. Since need is
>recognized as paramount, everyone is satisfied.
>
>I could go on forever. The key to the whole ball o' wax is to know when to
>stop.
>
>-arn
>
>In article <329d29a0...@news.visi.com>,
>
>The key to the whole example is that one must look at the broader scope.
>Who, exactly, are the couple involved and who is stealing?
>
>3. Needy ideal. The other person needs the new love more. Since need is
>recognized as paramount, everyone is satisfied.
>
>I could go on forever. The key to the whole ball o' wax is to know when
>to stop.
>
>-arn
>
Yes the question is who is stealing from whom. I would say that the
people who are in genuine need have the greater right to establish
arelationhsip than those who already have several poly-mates. I think
that the issue here is sexual capitalism. People want to keep what they
have and ensure that others have less, therefore they ensure higher
status and power. I understand that this is a common ethical problem
among swingers and single het males. Swing clubs most frequently allow
new single women to join since they are usually wanted by the men and
fairly often wanted by the women. Single males are then left out or
sometimes simply not allowed in. This is a very common issue discussed
in the rec.nude newsgroup. He single het male is often seen as an
unwelcome loser trying to take advantage.
Alex Osinski
inv...@visi.com (LionSerpent) wrote:
>Is it ethical to "steal" other peoples' poly-mates?
>
>I've been thinking about this question recently, and found it to be a
>much trickier question to answer than I initially thought it would be.
>
>My tentative answer to this opening question is that while the action
>is not technically "unethical", it is still rude and callous.
>Although I support someone's right to do a thing, I am still able to
>judge whether the kind of person who does them is someone I want to
>spend time with.
>
>LionSerpent
Yes, very much the case, in fact I think that has been a problem in
connecting with a lot of people, someone gets jealous and interferes with
the situation, usually a poly mate who comes up and whirls the person
away from me. I feel deprived and get pissed but the other people lay on
me that I am prejudice because this most frequently happens with bisexual
women.
tverify
I think there are laws in some places that allow a husband to sue his
wife's lover for "alienation of affection" or some such.
Rob Landry
um...@cybercom.net
Bill McCart
>
> Is it ethical to "steal" other peoples' poly-mates?
>
How can people steal each other? The question doesn't make any sense.
People make choices. If someone is interested in me, but then gets
interested in someone else and loses interest in me, then they chose
someone else over me. The other person didn't steal them. Even if that
other person acted with malicious intent, they still didn't steal, and
the person who left me still made a choice to do so, even if he/she
later regrets the choice.
Of course, in the real world, people do sometimes act maliciously and
disrupt relationships. However, looking at it as theft takes the focus
off the person who made the choice. Perhaps it's easier to do this
because it allows for blame, whereas facing the truth means having to
face rejection.
Bill
'mathochist' Angela Long
Unless they're slaves, they can't be "stolen."
>For example, if a couple is forming tenuous new-relationship bonds
>with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
>the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
>the couple?
If the person is poly, why would wooing hir cause hir to go
away from the couple? Poly means sie can be wooed by the
couple *and* the new person, and not be "away" from anyone.
>My tentative answer to this opening question is that while the action
>is not technically "unethical", it is still rude and callous.
If, say, a person who was involved with a couple also got
involved with me, and then decided sie was more interested
in spending time with me than with the couple, I think it
would be more rude to second-guess hir choices and make
the decision for hir as to who sie can spend time with.
If sie's poly, I don't see what can be rude about starting
another relationship with hir, as long as any existing
agreements are respected.
--
-- Angi
jenner
Alex Osinski <osin...@concentric.net> wrote:
: Yes the question is who is stealing from whom. I would say that the
: people who are in genuine need have the greater right to establish
: arelationhsip than those who already have several poly-mates. I think
: that the issue here is sexual capitalism.
I disagree with this concept. I wonder at who get's to be
the judge of who 'needs' it more and who doesn't. I can
hear many of the statements now...
"Why do you need another partner? You have me, right?"
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
With that we can now add....
"Why do you need another parther? You already have two!"
Not interested, at all, in someone else judging what others
need.
: People want to keep what they
: have and ensure that others have less, therefore they ensure higher
: status and power.
Someone else can have those kind of people. *I'm* not a
status symbol.
: I understand that this is a common ethical problem
: among swingers and single het males. Swing clubs most frequently allow
: new single women to join since they are usually wanted by the men and
: fairly often wanted by the women. Single males are then left out or
: sometimes simply not allowed in. This is a very common issue discussed
: in the rec.nude newsgroup. He single het male is often seen as an
: unwelcome loser trying to take advantage.
I think that is a different issue. More likely one of
single males ending up harrassing women in such spaces.
piranha
In article <329d29a0...@news.visi.com>,
it's not possible in my book. one can only steal property,
not people.
>For example, if a couple is forming tenuous new-relationship bonds
>with a new partner, is it "unethical" for another person, who knows of
>the forming relationship, to come in and woo the new person away from
>the couple?
if this newly wooed person is poly, why does a second interest
have to result in being "wooed away"? theoretically, that per-
son could well maintain relationships with both the couple and
the other person.
>"ethical" - a tricky word, which could be defined by different people
>anywhere on a range from "respecting polite conventions" to "in line
>with god's law". My ethics state that free choices between informed
>adults are sacrosanct. Therefore, the "stealer" and "stolen" in the
>example are technically behaving ethically, in my view.
on the level of personal ethics (where it's not possible at all
to steal people), i would not get involved during the forming
of a new relationship; i'd wait with my attentions until later.
in a non-poly world, that means i don't go after folks who are
already romantically involved. i've been in the situation where
two of us were interested in the same third, and poly was not an
option -- if we were friends, i'd ask whether i should withdraw.
i don't like competing for people, and friendship is important
to me.
if we were not friends, then i'd likely not know about the "com-
petition". but if i found out there was considerable interest
in somebody else, i'd still likely withdraw, because i am very
intense during the forming of a relationship, and there is no
room for other new people at that stage.
>"stealing" - The word implies loss, which is the case here.
the word even more implies theft to me, *snicker*. maybe you
should stress the loss aspect by simply calling it that. that
_is_ the problem really, isn't it?
>My tentative answer to this opening question is that while the action
>is not technically "unethical", it is still rude and callous.
i know a lot of people who consider competition during dating to
be perfectly ethical. heck, etiquette books talk about "dating
around".
as to whether it's rude and callous -- as i said above, i am
not likely to do it (i'd not like to have it done to me either).
but i can see circumstances under which i might -- what if this
was a person i consider to be a lifemate, while you folks were
just looking for somebody to have sex with? i would then not
automatically withdraw, and i would see nothing wrong with point-
ing this out to the person in question.
it's rude and callous if lies are used to pull the person away.
but even then, the responsibility is on that person (unless we
are talking about thriller scenarios where zie is drugged. :-).
>Although I support someone's right to do a thing, I am still able to
>judge whether the kind of person who does them is someone I want to
>spend time with.
and don't forget whether the person who lets it be done to them
is someone you want to spend time with.
-piranha
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <329d29a0...@news.visi.com>,
LionSerpent <inv...@visi.com> wrote:
>Is it ethical to "steal" other peoples' poly-mates?
My basic belief is that it is impossible to "steal" someone, but it is
definitely possible (and rude) to disrupt other people's relationships
(not everyone has the relationship skills to rebuff such disruptions).
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
Fifth Virtual Anniversary: 29 days and counting
Jenner
aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
# In article <329d29a0...@news.visi.com>,
# LionSerpent <inv...@visi.com> wrote:
# >Is it ethical to "steal" other peoples' poly-mates?
# My basic belief is that it is impossible to "steal" someone, but it
is
# definitely possible (and rude) to disrupt other people's
relationships
# (not everyone has the relationship skills to rebuff such
disruptions).
With that said, and it being recognized that we really can't steal
what isn't owned, what about the ethics of "disrupting" a newly
forming, or existing relationship.
Another way of saying this is not showing respect for a relationship
that came before you. <----this is an important issue to me.
Oh, and I'm all ready to hear, "but if I can disrupt it how strong was
it and, if I can disrupt it, what about *MY* *MY* *MY* needs!!!!"
Please...
-- jenner
http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29
SwiftRain
Jenner wrote:
>
> With that said, and it being recognized that we really can't steal
> what isn't owned, what about the ethics of "disrupting" a newly
> forming, or existing relationship.
so if it is a question of disrupting a relationship intentionally, for
some personal gain, then i would find it unethical.
i find it unfortunate that in our monogomous society, sharing and
growing closer with someone can be considered "disruptive" even if it
does not have an direct adverse effect on that person's other
relationships.
but unfortunately that is how it is, and we cannot use our ideals of
polyamory as a lever to harm others, by blaming their ideology instead
of our disrespect for it.
(apologies for any lack of clarity in this post -- but it *is* a
discussion of ethics, after all.)
--
SwiftRain <swi...@elision.com> -- http://www.elision.com/sr/
'mathochist' Angela Long
Jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
># My basic belief is that it is impossible to "steal" someone, but it
>is
># definitely possible (and rude) to disrupt other people's
>relationships
>With that said, and it being recognized that we really can't steal
>what isn't owned, what about the ethics of "disrupting" a newly
>forming, or existing relationship.
>Another way of saying this is not showing respect for a relationship
>that came before you. <----this is an important issue to me.
Does "came before you" *always* mean "more important than you?"
I think I remember you (Jenner) saying that you had the ideal of
non-hierarchical (non-primary/secondary) polyamory. But if some-
thing is to be non-hierarchical, that means that at some point,
it has to stop being relevant which relationship came first.
In the beginning of a relationship "B" where there was already
a relationship "A," though, this is always an important question;
there's no way a new relationship can be expected to be as im-
portant as a longstanding one right from the beginning, even if
all the parties agree on the non-hierarchical ideal.
But then, the issue of "disruptions" is not at all cut and dried.
Are all disruptions necessarily bad? I don't think so; some
are good for people. Is the new person always responsible for
disruptions that happen after sie enters the picture? Not in my
experience. And what, exactly, constitutes "respecting a rela-
tionship," anyway? Part of it is abiding by preexisting agree-
ments, that much is pretty clear; but what about the realm
where there are no previous agreements?
Relationships exist for the people in them, not the other way
around. It makes more sense to me to respect *people* than
*relationships*. Sometimes, there are conflicts between two
people in a relationship, and a third person may be in a posi-
tion where no matter what sie does, sie's going to be "disrup-
tive" to one person and "supportive" to the other. It's not
always possible to do 100% right by everyone at the same time.
>Oh, and I'm all ready to hear, "but if I can disrupt it how strong was
>it and, if I can disrupt it, what about *MY* *MY* *MY* needs!!!!"
I wouldn't put it that way, but under the bitchy wording there,
I think there are some points. For one thing, it doesn't make
much sense to me to value a relationship *more* than the people
in it do. As an extreme example, say I meet somebody who tells
me he is separated from his wife and filing for divorce; may-
be he even shows me the divorce papers. If the wife is still
hoping for a reconciliation, am I in the wrong if I date him?
Maybe if the breakup was just last week, I should encourage
him to give it enough time to make absolutely certain it was
what he wanted (and probably would). But if he's been out of
the house for six months, I'm not "disrupting" anything if I
date him; his decision about it didn't even have anything to
do with me.
For another thing, *what about* the needs of the partner in
relationship "B?" Secondaries *do* have needs and rights of
their own within their relationships, and if the secondary
is expected to compromise some of hir own needs and wants
for the primary, that should be reciprocal to at least some
degree. Respect just can't flow only one way. Also, any-
body in any relationship, secondary, primary, whatever-ary,
has the right to set boundaries on what sie will and won't
accept in the relationship, and if a relationship with a
secondary is begun with certain agreements made for the
sake of *hir* needs and boundaries, then those agreements
should be respected later by the primary just as agree-
ments with the primary would be respected by the secondary.
--
-- Angi
Jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: Jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: >aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
: ># My basic belief is that it is impossible to "steal" someone, but it
: >is
: ># definitely possible (and rude) to disrupt other people's
: >relationships
: >With that said, and it being recognized that we really can't steal
: >what isn't owned, what about the ethics of "disrupting" a newly
: >forming, or existing relationship.
: >Another way of saying this is not showing respect for a relationship
: >that came before you. <----this is an important issue to me.
: Does "came before you" *always* mean "more important than you?"
Of course not.
: I think I remember you (Jenner) saying that you had the ideal of
: non-hierarchical (non-primary/secondary) polyamory.
I never said I had the ideal of whatever. I did say we have something that
works for us, and is working as well as it can for me.
It's really annoying when you do this, argue about what I didn't say, or
say things about me that misrepresent things. Did you know that?
: But if some-
: thing is to be non-hierarchical, that means that at some point,
: it has to stop being relevant which relationship came first.
*When forming* a new relationship, where other relationships *already
exist*, expecially if it is me, I consider it paramount importance that
the new person demonstrate respect for what came before them.
Failure to do so, could result in hurt feelings, disrespect coming from all
corners, and the eventual possible destruction of some or all of the
relationships.
That doesn't say, in any way, that they end up taking a back seat.
It doesn't say that at all.
: But then, the issue of "disruptions" is not at all cut and dried.
: Are all disruptions necessarily bad? I don't think so; some
: are good for people.
I guess that depends on which end of the disruption you are on, doesn't it?
: Is the new person always responsible for
: disruptions that happen after sie enters the picture?
No, of course not.
: Not in my
: experience. And what, exactly, constitutes "respecting a rela-
: tionship," anyway?
That is a damn good question, isn't it?
And, yes, I'm being cagey. Someone sue me.
: Relationships exist for the people in them, not the other way
: around. It makes more sense to me to respect *people* than
: *relationships*.
If that works for you and yours, more power to you. To me, the
relationships and the people are interconnected, intertwined,
synergistic.
Also, none of my statements devalue the new partner in the slightest.
-- jenner
http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29
piranha
In article <58494f$b...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>,
Jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
>With that said, and it being recognized that we really can't steal
>what isn't owned, what about the ethics of "disrupting" a newly
>forming, or existing relationship.
i don't like it. ie. i try my damndest not to do it -- i
ask _before_ getting involved whether there is somebody
else in the picture, and if there is, then the involvement
goes on hold until we've talked a lot more. i prefer very
much to meet the other people involved, so i can get a
first hand impression of who they are -- and they can see
that i am not a threat.
this doesn't always work, especially not in mono relation-
ships, *sigh*. sometimes people see any forming friendship
with a certain degree of intimacy as disruptive.
>Another way of saying this is not showing respect for a relationship
>that came before you. <----this is an important issue to me.
me too. but while i've found that i am usually bending over
backwards to show respect, the opposite isn't true as often,
no matter how hard i try. yeah, i know, i should try this
more with poly people, but since i don't select my friends
by lifestyle, that's not always an option. i have pretty
high standards, since i've been in a poly relationship that
worked very well, with loads of respect and consideration on
all sides.
interestingly, having respect for relationships that came be-
fore me has been very useful in mono relationships as well --
i have respect for previous partners, and do no want to era-
dicate them from my current partner's life. that came in very
handy in my first poly relationship -- the person my partner
wanted to add was zir ex, and so we were both "before" the
other, *grin*, and i think mutual respect helped that along.
i'm sure it'd be harder with a total stranger. but since the
agreement is that we tell each other at the very onset of in-
terest, the person will presumably not stay a stranger until
some shocking denouement (*shudder* -- hate those).
what i am not prepared for, and wonder sometimes how i would
deal with, is the addition of a new partner whom i do not at
all like and/or respect. i can see the disruption factor be-
come considerably more important then.
>Oh, and I'm all ready to hear, "but if I can disrupt it how strong was
>it and, if I can disrupt it, what about *MY* *MY* *MY* needs!!!!"
naw. well, yeah, what _about_ my needs? i do think that if
i am the new partner i deserve consideration as well, and i do
not want to have to grovel, or to defer politely to the senior
relationship partner. but i do think that one can disrupt a
relationship that was not previously in trouble.
i would probably avoid any relationship with somebody who does
not want me to meet zir other partners. it's all good and well
to trust, but i trust my own insights a lot better than anyone
else's. i most definitely would not decide major issues (such
as less safe sex, buying a home together, having children, or
moving elsewhere) without the other partner(s) at the table; it
is too risky to trust the words "oh, sure, my partner is ok with
that"; too much is at stake.
-piranha
'mathochist' Angela Long
Jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>: >With that said, and it being recognized that we really can't steal
>: >what isn't owned, what about the ethics of "disrupting" a newly
>: >forming, or existing relationship.
>: >that came before you. <----this is an important issue to me.
>angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
>: I think I remember you (Jenner) saying that you had the ideal of
>: non-hierarchical (non-primary/secondary) polyamory.
>I never said I had the ideal of whatever. I did say we have something that
>works for us, and is working as well as it can for me.
>It's really annoying when you do this, argue about what I didn't say, or
>say things about me that misrepresent things. Did you know that?
I'm sorry, I thought that's what I remembered you saying; I'm
sure you said something about not all your relationships neces-
sarily being primary/secondary. It was only a comment; why do
you take this as "arguing?"
>: But if some-
>: thing is to be non-hierarchical, that means that at some point,
>: it has to stop being relevant which relationship came first.
>*When forming* a new relationship, where other relationships *already
>exist*, expecially if it is me, I consider it paramount importance that
>the new person demonstrate respect for what came before them.
Which I said, in the next paragraph.
>: But then, the issue of "disruptions" is not at all cut and dried.
>: Are all disruptions necessarily bad? I don't think so; some
>: are good for people.
>I guess that depends on which end of the disruption you are on, doesn't it?
Not necessarily. Example: A and B have a monogamous relation-
ship. A meets somebody sie would like to form another relation-
ship with. A begins a discussion and negotiation with B about
polyamory. This disrupts their relationship. But later, both
are glad, finding that the rewards of poly are worth the dis-
ruption.
Disruption is often necessary for growth.
>: Relationships exist for the people in them, not the other way
>: around. It makes more sense to me to respect *people* than
>: *relationships*.
>If that works for you and yours, more power to you. To me, the
>relationships and the people are interconnected, intertwined,
>synergistic.
I just don't see a relationship *per se* as a sacred thing to
be protected at all costs. As an extreme example, if I saw
an extremely abusive relationship, wherein one of the partners
was in danger, maybe even of death, I wouldn't "respect" that
relationship; in fact, I'd probably do what I could to get
that person *out* of it. The relationship only has as much
value as it is providing to *all* the people in it; if it's
destructive of a person in it, it has negative value.
Another example: say I am dating C. C and I have no agree-
ments regarding other relationships whatsoever, and I do not
intend my relationship with C to limit my other relationships
in any way. I start seeing B as well. How does B need to
act toward my relationship with C? Suppose C gets uncomfor-
table with my seeing B. C has always known that my freedom
in other relationships was a condition of our relationship
and, in fact, I would rather break up with C than give up
that freedom, if it turn out that C can't be comfortable.
Should B back away from me to avoid causing further disrup-
tions between C and me, knowing that that's not what I want?
To go further, who defines what a relationship is, and what
needs to be respected? What if C is somebody I've been out
with a few times but who I don't consider a serious rela-
tionship, and sie suddenly starts telling B to "back off my
girlfriend," while I'm telling B "I'm *not* hir 'girlfriend?'"
I can easily see this relating to the situation that was first
presented, which was a new person getting involved with a
couple's new poly partner. What if the couple's partner sees
that relationship as just one among many sie might have, and
doesn't want the fact that it might have come before others
to have any significance at all?
I would absolutely hate it if every single relationship I
might form was going to be seen by others as something to
be "respected/not disrupted," whether *I* wanted the rela-
tionship seen that way or not. It should be up to *me* to
define how I want my potential partners to act toward ex-
isting relationships.
--
-- Angi
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Not necessarily. Example: A and B have a monogamous relation-
>ship. A meets somebody sie would like to form another relation-
>ship with. A begins a discussion and negotiation with B about
>polyamory. This disrupts their relationship. But later, both
>are glad, finding that the rewards of poly are worth the dis-
>ruption.
>
>Disruption is often necessary for growth.
That kind of disruption seems ethically more acceptable to me than, for
example:
A and B have a monogamous relationship and a friend C. C decides zie
wants a sexual relationship with A. C constantly pesters B about
this. A is not very good at handling it, and the result is that B
gets upset and B's relationship with A is disrupted.
>Another example: say I am dating C. C and I have no agree-
>ments regarding other relationships whatsoever, and I do not
>intend my relationship with C to limit my other relationships
>in any way. I start seeing B as well. How does B need to
>act toward my relationship with C? Suppose C gets uncomfor-
>table with my seeing B. C has always known that my freedom
>in other relationships was a condition of our relationship
>and, in fact, I would rather break up with C than give up
>that freedom, if it turn out that C can't be comfortable.
>Should B back away from me to avoid causing further disrup-
>tions between C and me, knowing that that's not what I want?
Interesting. Above, you say disruption is often necessary for growth.
Here, you say that you would rather break up with C rather than endure
the disruption of re-negotiating your relationship with C. But what if
re-negotiating would be a growth experience for you and C? You seem to
be taking contradictory positions on the value of disruption.
Anyway, I am in a situation vaguely like this, as B. I am letting A
decide how to approach it, whether to re-negotiate with C or to say
"screw it, I won't agree to any restrictions." I haven't backed away
completely; I'm still friends with A and zie knows my preferences. But I
will not push beyond that; that would be unethical by my standards.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I go around feeing sorry for myself, and all the while a great
wind is carrying me across the sky. -- Anishinabe
'mathochist' Angela Long
Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>Not necessarily. Example: A and B have a monogamous relation-
>>ship. A meets somebody sie would like to form another relation-
>>ship with. A begins a discussion and negotiation with B about
>>polyamory. This disrupts their relationship. But later, both
>>are glad, finding that the rewards of poly are worth the dis-
>>ruption.
>>Disruption is often necessary for growth.
>That kind of disruption seems ethically more acceptable to me than, for
>example:
> A and B have a monogamous relationship and a friend C. C decides zie
> wants a sexual relationship with A. C constantly pesters B about
> this. A is not very good at handling it, and the result is that B
> gets upset and B's relationship with A is disrupted.
Yes, there's a difference between disrupting something just by
being involved at all, and going out of your way to cause a dis-
ruption. I don't think just getting involved with somebody who
wants to be involved with you, when that involvement doesn't
violate any existing agreements, is usually unethical. Nor is
being involved in starting a negotiation for a change in rules.
Pestering, harassing, pushing, though, fall into another class.
>>Another example: say I am dating C. C and I have no agree-
>>ments regarding other relationships whatsoever, and I do not
>>intend my relationship with C to limit my other relationships
>>in any way. I start seeing B as well. How does B need to
>>act toward my relationship with C? Suppose C gets uncomfor-
>>table with my seeing B. C has always known that my freedom
>>in other relationships was a condition of our relationship
>>and, in fact, I would rather break up with C than give up
>>that freedom, if it turn out that C can't be comfortable.
>>Should B back away from me to avoid causing further disrup-
>>tions between C and me, knowing that that's not what I want?
>Interesting. Above, you say disruption is often necessary for growth.
>Here, you say that you would rather break up with C rather than endure
>the disruption of re-negotiating your relationship with C. But what if
>re-negotiating would be a growth experience for you and C? You seem to
>be taking contradictory positions on the value of disruption.
I don't see any contradiction. Personal growth sometimes leads
*away* from relationships, and I'm concerned with growth of
people, not of the abstract entities that are relationships.
In the above example, I don't see anything wrong with freedom
in other relationships being outright, simply, a bottom-line
issue, something more important to me than my relationship
with a particular person. It might not be *exactly* how I ac-
tually do feel -- it's simplified for the sake of example --
but it's perfectly reasonable to prefer the disruption of
breaking up with C to the disruption of bending in a way I
know I can't be happy with.
C could be a very serious lifepartner here, and the issue of
freedom could just be even more important to me than C is.
Or C could be a "tertiary-level" partner, just a fuckbuddy or
somebody I "occasionally date," a relationship that is under-
stood to be relatively low in priority as relationships go.
In the first case, I can see somebody objecting, "but your
serious partner 'should' be more important than your freedom,"
although I don't agree with that objection; there are *al-
ways* personal issues more important than any partner, if
you have an identity at all, and I don't think anybody else
can define what they 'should' be for me. In the second case,
it seems pretty clear that C would be out of line to even ex-
pect me to act on hir jealous feelings (not out of line to
feel them, but out of line to expect a change in the under-
stood conditions based on them).
And the latter case strikes me as closer to the originally
posted example, which was somebody "wooing" a couple's rela-
tively new poly partner. If the partner is new to the
couple, it seems likely to me that at this point sie sees
that relationship as on the "dating" level, not very high on
the priority list, and I don't think B should presume that
that relationship 'should' be very important to A; that's
up to A.
>Anyway, I am in a situation vaguely like this, as B. I am letting A
>decide how to approach it, whether to re-negotiate with C or to say
>"screw it, I won't agree to any restrictions." I haven't backed away
>completely; I'm still friends with A and zie knows my preferences. But I
>will not push beyond that; that would be unethical by my standards.
I've been in a similar situation, too, and that's pretty
much how I handled it. I was blamed a lot by C for being
the source of, or at least catalyst for, disruption, but I
still think letting A decide how to handle the situation
was the right thing to do.
--
-- Angi
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>That kind of disruption seems ethically more acceptable to me than, for
>>example:
>> A and B have a monogamous relationship and a friend C. C decides zie
>> wants a sexual relationship with A. C constantly pesters B about
>> this. A is not very good at handling it, and the result is that B
>> gets upset and B's relationship with A is disrupted.
>Yes, there's a difference between disrupting something just by
>being involved at all, and going out of your way to cause a dis-
>ruption. I don't think just getting involved with somebody who
>wants to be involved with you, when that involvement doesn't
>violate any existing agreements, is usually unethical. Nor is
>being involved in starting a negotiation for a change in rules.
I agree in theory, but my ethical standards for my own behavior tend to
be stricter. I don't go strictly by whether agreements already exist; I
also take what I can figure out of the other person's feelings and
desires into account. I usually don't start negotiations for changes in
rules, either.
>>Interesting. Above, you say disruption is often necessary for growth.
>>Here, you say that you would rather break up with C rather than endure
>>the disruption of re-negotiating your relationship with C. But what if
>>re-negotiating would be a growth experience for you and C? You seem to
>>be taking contradictory positions on the value of disruption.
>I don't see any contradiction. Personal growth sometimes leads
>*away* from relationships, and I'm concerned with growth of
>people, not of the abstract entities that are relationships.
>In the above example, I don't see anything wrong with freedom
>in other relationships being outright, simply, a bottom-line
>issue, something more important to me than my relationship
It's not that I'm trying to claim relationships are more important than
people, but it seems to me that if one is committed to personal growth,
then one also needs to avoid laying down rigid rules of any variety
other than "I must be open to growth opportunities." Laying down a rule
of "my freedom is sacrosanct" prevents one from taking advantage of
growth opportunities in the realm of commitment and compromise. There's
nothing wrong with either position, particularly, but you can't really
be committed to both at the same time, IMO.
>And the latter case strikes me as closer to the originally
>posted example, which was somebody "wooing" a couple's rela-
>tively new poly partner. If the partner is new to the
>couple, it seems likely to me that at this point sie sees
>that relationship as on the "dating" level, not very high on
>the priority list, and I don't think B should presume that
>that relationship 'should' be very important to A; that's
>up to A.
I see your point, but as B, I might choose not to woo that person for
personal reasons, too. New relationships can be stressful. Starting
several at once might cause a lot of stress in that person's life. I
might not want in my life someone going through that much stress.
>>Anyway, I am in a situation vaguely like this, as B. I am letting A
>>decide how to approach it, whether to re-negotiate with C or to say
>>"screw it, I won't agree to any restrictions." I haven't backed away
>>completely; I'm still friends with A and zie knows my preferences. But I
>>will not push beyond that; that would be unethical by my standards.
>I've been in a similar situation, too, and that's pretty
>much how I handled it. I was blamed a lot by C for being
>the source of, or at least catalyst for, disruption, but I
>still think letting A decide how to handle the situation
>was the right thing to do.
I don't have enough communication with C to know whether zie blames me.
Part of the problem here was that A was used to categorizing zir
relationships, and while C and I knew of each other's existence as
friends of A, neither of us knew the other was A's lover until fairly
late in the game. C has been friends with A for longer than I have, but
I've been lovers with A for longer than zie has. So there's no clear
priority/ranking.
And my "read" on the other person has a lot to do with it, too. In a
couple of situations, a lover of mine found another partner and decided
to became monogamous with zir. I was disappointed but didn't put up a
huge fuss, because I thought the new partner was good for zir. In the
situation I mention above, I am resisting a bit more because, based on
what I know about C and A, I am not convinced a monogamous relationship
with C would be good for A.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Amendment One. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-- U.S. Constitution
'mathochist' Angela Long
Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>wants to be involved with you, when that involvement doesn't
>>violate any existing agreements, is usually unethical. Nor is
>>being involved in starting a negotiation for a change in rules.
>I agree in theory, but my ethical standards for my own behavior tend to
>be stricter. I don't go strictly by whether agreements already exist; I
>also take what I can figure out of the other person's feelings and
>desires into account.
But the feelings of all the people involved need to be taken
into account, not just of your (potential) partner's other.
Suppose I have a partner who really wants me to be monogamous,
but since I know I wouldn't be happy monogamous, I have not
made any monogamy agreement; rather, I have told hir that any
relationship with me must be poly, and sie accepts that. Is
it unethical to get involved with me? Is it unethical to do
anything that makes one person in a relationship uncomfortable,
when that person has consented to accepting that kind of dis-
comfort because it was so important to hir partner?
>I usually don't start negotiations for changes in rules, either.
Then what do you do when the current rules aren't meeting your
needs?
>>I don't see any contradiction. Personal growth sometimes leads
>>*away* from relationships, and I'm concerned with growth of
>>people, not of the abstract entities that are relationships.
>>In the above example, I don't see anything wrong with freedom
>>in other relationships being outright, simply, a bottom-line
>>issue, something more important to me than my relationship
>It's not that I'm trying to claim relationships are more important than
>people, but it seems to me that if one is committed to personal growth,
>then one also needs to avoid laying down rigid rules of any variety
>other than "I must be open to growth opportunities." Laying down a rule
>of "my freedom is sacrosanct" prevents one from taking advantage of
>growth opportunities in the realm of commitment and compromise. There's
>nothing wrong with either position, particularly, but you can't really
>be committed to both at the same time, IMO.
I don't agree. I don't think anybody needs to be willing to
"grow" in directions sie already knows are bad for hir. Or
to sacrifice things sie considers more important than a given
relationship.
Should I be willing to give up my children in order to "grow"
with a partner who doesn't want children? To change my reli-
gion? To become a criminal? To try sexual acts I consider
abhorrent? To give up my career? To break promises to other
people? To move from my home? I don't think so. If I know
these things are more important to me than a given relation-
ship, I don't need to be willing to compromise on them.
I said that disruption is sometimes necessary for growth, not
that *all* kinds of growth are necessarily good things.
>>And the latter case strikes me as closer to the originally
>>posted example, which was somebody "wooing" a couple's rela-
>>tively new poly partner. If the partner is new to the
>>couple, it seems likely to me that at this point sie sees
>>that relationship as on the "dating" level, not very high on
>>the priority list, and I don't think B should presume that
>>that relationship 'should' be very important to A; that's
>>up to A.
>I see your point, but as B, I might choose not to woo that person for
>personal reasons, too. New relationships can be stressful. Starting
>several at once might cause a lot of stress in that person's life. I
>might not want in my life someone going through that much stress.
That would be your choice. It doesn't relate to whether
it would be rude or unethical to woo the person, though.
>>>Anyway, I am in a situation vaguely like this, as B. I am letting A
>>>decide how to approach it, whether to re-negotiate with C or to say
>>>"screw it, I won't agree to any restrictions." I haven't backed away
>>>completely; I'm still friends with A and zie knows my preferences. But I
>>>will not push beyond that; that would be unethical by my standards.
>I don't have enough communication with C to know whether zie blames me.
>Part of the problem here was that A was used to categorizing zir
>relationships, and while C and I knew of each other's existence as
>friends of A, neither of us knew the other was A's lover until fairly
>late in the game. C has been friends with A for longer than I have, but
>I've been lovers with A for longer than zie has. So there's no clear
>priority/ranking.
Even if one relationship had definitely started before the
other, there would not necessarily be a clear "ranking." The
fact of having started first does not necessarily make some-
thing more important. What if C believed (maybe even rightly)
that hir relationship had started first, and that this implied
some sort of obligation from A to make their relationship more
important than yours, even though A had never intended or
agreed to that?
I had something along those lines happen. If A had really
made an agreement to give C highest priority, or meant to imply
one, I would not have considered it ethical to assist hir in
breaking it (to sit back while sie renegotiated it, maybe, but
not to break it). But I also did not consider it right to act
as if A had actually made an agreement which sie never had.
Some obligations are rightly "implied" by a situation without
explicit agreement, but in this case, A said sie had specific-
ally negotiated the opposite of what C was claiming was implied.
>And my "read" on the other person has a lot to do with it, too. In a
>couple of situations, a lover of mine found another partner and decided
>to became monogamous with zir. I was disappointed but didn't put up a
>huge fuss, because I thought the new partner was good for zir. In the
>situation I mention above, I am resisting a bit more because, based on
>what I know about C and A, I am not convinced a monogamous relationship
>with C would be good for A.
My judgment of another relationship tends to affect how I
act toward it to some extent, too, although I know the judg-
ment of the people in that relationship should have more
validity than my own judgment. The more abuse/bad stuff I
see in another relationship, the less inclined I am to make
the preservation of that relationship a very high priority.
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
> i don't like it. ie. i try my damndest not to do it -- i
> ask _before_ getting involved whether there is somebody
> else in the picture, and if there is, then the involvement
> goes on hold until we've talked a lot more. i prefer very
> much to meet the other people involved, so i can get a
> first hand impression of who they are -- and they can see
> that i am not a threat.
<snip>
> i would probably avoid any relationship with somebody who does
> not want me to meet zir other partners. it's all good and well
> to trust, but i trust my own insights a lot better than anyone
> else's. i most definitely would not decide major issues (such
> as less safe sex, buying a home together, having children, or
> moving elsewhere) without the other partner(s) at the table; it
> is too risky to trust the words "oh, sure, my partner is ok with
> that"; too much is at stake.
Do the above hold no matter what the nature of the other relation-
ship(s)? What if all the other relationships are secondary-level,
or "occasionally dating," or fuckbuddies? Does the insistence on
having other partner(s) present to decide major issues hold even
if you are the primary, and the other partner(s) are secondary?
If your potential partner has a handful of other people sie has
dated a few times each, is it important to you to show each of
those people that you are not a threat?
<slightly out of order>
> naw. well, yeah, what _about_ my needs? i do think that if
> i am the new partner i deserve consideration as well, and i do
> not want to have to grovel, or to defer politely to the senior
> relationship partner.
Well-said (applause). Respect must go both ways. I can't stand
situations where "secondary" feels like "submissive" or "slave."
> but i do think that one can disrupt a
> relationship that was not previously in trouble.
I think it may be more accurate to say that one can disrupt a
relationship that didn't previously *know* it was in trouble.
The potential, at least, usually had to have been there to
begin with, and in fact "disruptions" are often actually dis-
coveries of underlying disagreements which a new person may
have provided the opportunity for discovering. But the new
person doesn't usually *create* those disagreements; they
were there all along, just waiting to be uncovered.
I got involved a few years back with a couple who had always
talked about the husband taking another wife. The disruption
came about because the wife had never expected that her hus-
band would actually be in *love* with this other wife. I'm
not sure what she thought this other woman's motivation for
joining them would be, if it wasn't love, but she had assumed
that even if her husband had another wife, he would love only
her. Did I *cause* that disruption? I don't think so. I
don't even think I was out of line for assuming "love" was
okay when "wife" was negotiated; it's still beyond me how
anyone could expect "wife" to *not* include "love." That
problem was already there, just waiting to be uncovered.
--
-- Angi
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>I agree in theory, but my ethical standards for my own behavior tend to
>>be stricter. I don't go strictly by whether agreements already exist; I
>>also take what I can figure out of the other person's feelings and
>>desires into account.
>But the feelings of all the people involved need to be taken
>into account, not just of your (potential) partner's other.
>Suppose I have a partner who really wants me to be monogamous,
>but since I know I wouldn't be happy monogamous, I have not
>made any monogamy agreement; rather, I have told hir that any
>relationship with me must be poly, and sie accepts that. Is
>it unethical to get involved with me? Is it unethical to do
>anything that makes one person in a relationship uncomfortable,
>when that person has consented to accepting that kind of dis-
>comfort because it was so important to hir partner?
It's not necessarily unethical with a capital letter. However, in many
such cases it would goes against my personal ethics (behavior standards
I hold for myself but don't think are The One True Way and don't think
everyone should hold them). The personal ethics that would come into
play here are "avoiding competitive situations" and "seeking
simplicity."
If someone actively consents to accept discomfort, it's more clearly OK
than if someone does not consent but is involved in an uncomfortable
situation anyway. For an example of the latter, I knew a couple that had
a standoff about poly. She said "If you sleep with anyone else, we're
through" and he said "I won't promise never to sleep with anyone else."
I would not have slept with him under those conditions. But I've also
known relationships where one person was not comfortable with poly but
said "Go ahead anyway." I've behaved differently under those conditions.
>>I usually don't start negotiations for changes in rules, either.
>Then what do you do when the current rules aren't meeting your
>needs?
I say so (but that's different from starting a negotiation, which is
asking that things be changed for my sake), and/or I try to get used to
it, and/or I leave.
>>It's not that I'm trying to claim relationships are more important than
>>people, but it seems to me that if one is committed to personal growth,
>>then one also needs to avoid laying down rigid rules of any variety
>>other than "I must be open to growth opportunities." Laying down a rule
>>of "my freedom is sacrosanct" prevents one from taking advantage of
>>growth opportunities in the realm of commitment and compromise. There's
>>nothing wrong with either position, particularly, but you can't really
>>be committed to both at the same time, IMO.
>I don't agree. I don't think anybody needs to be willing to
>"grow" in directions sie already knows are bad for hir.
I agree, but that person isn't really committed completely to personal
growth. If you think you "know" something and are rigid about it, you've
cut off a lot of growth opportunities in that area. That's OK, of
course. I'm not really big on being completely committed to personal
growth anyway.
>>I don't have enough communication with C to know whether zie blames me.
>>Part of the problem here was that A was used to categorizing zir
>>relationships, and while C and I knew of each other's existence as
>>friends of A, neither of us knew the other was A's lover until fairly
>>late in the game. C has been friends with A for longer than I have, but
>>I've been lovers with A for longer than zie has. So there's no clear
>>priority/ranking.
>Even if one relationship had definitely started before the
>other, there would not necessarily be a clear "ranking." The
>fact of having started first does not necessarily make some-
>thing more important.
Sure. In this case, that would be the primary basis I'd use for trying
to rank the relationships, but that's not always true. As I've said, in
other relationships, a person my lover got involved with after me became
primary and assumed more importance.
>What if C believed (maybe even rightly)
>that hir relationship had started first, and that this implied
>some sort of obligation from A to make their relationship more
>important than yours, even though A had never intended or
>agreed to that?
C would be SOL unless C could get A to agree to zir point of view.
>But I also did not consider it right to act
>as if A had actually made an agreement which sie never had.
>Some obligations are rightly "implied" by a situation without
>explicit agreement, but in this case, A said sie had specific-
>ally negotiated the opposite of what C was claiming was implied.
Sounds like a mess; if I could manage it, I'd stay out of such a
situation for personal safety/sanity reasons. If I were in it, I'd just
have to muddle through based on intuition.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a
chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but
also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such
a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's
dominion maintained.
Arnold Vance
In article <32A5CE...@elision.com>, SwiftRain <swi...@elision.com> wrote:
>Jenner wrote:
>>
>> With that said, and it being recognized that we really can't steal
>> what isn't owned, what about the ethics of "disrupting" a newly
>> forming, or existing relationship.
>
>so if it is a question of disrupting a relationship intentionally, for
>some personal gain, then i would find it unethical.
>
>i find it unfortunate that in our monogomous society, sharing and
>growing closer with someone can be considered "disruptive" even if it
>does not have an direct adverse effect on that person's other
>relationships.
>but unfortunately that is how it is, and we cannot use our ideals of
>polyamory as a lever to harm others, by blaming their ideology instead
>of our disrespect for it.
>
>(apologies for any lack of clarity in this post -- but it *is* a
>discussion of ethics, after all.)
Clarity is not by definition or nature absent from discussion of ethics.
It's the clear expression of those ethics that generally is. In fact, like
morals, aesthetics, and, uh, lovers, things are very clear. It's just that
articulating them is hard. And actually, what's hard is articulating them
to those who have no palate for...I was going to say truth but it stuck
in my craw.
The question, as I want to understand it, is not pitching itself against
the monogoloidal atmosphere, rather, it's trying to get at the tricky
bit of politics involved in potentially competitive startup situations.
(The endgame also has it's logics--so called "rebound" times.) To tell the
"truth" I don't know how I'd answer this in general. If everyone could "see"
everything equally well, then it'd be a fair free-for-all and to the victor
go the spoils. Not the case.
And while I'm in an objectionable frame of mind I also want to say that
almost all is done for personal gain. It's just that my notion of personal
is so ununique--if you know what I mean.
-arn
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>>With that said, and it being recognized that we really can't steal
>>what isn't owned, what about the ethics of "disrupting" a newly
>>forming, or existing relationship.
>>Another way of saying this is not showing respect for a relationship
>>that came before you. <----this is an important issue to me.
>Does "came before you" *always* mean "more important than you?"
Do you only show respect for things that are more important than you?
>I think I remember you (Jenner) saying that you had the ideal of
>non-hierarchical (non-primary/secondary) polyamory. But if some-
>thing is to be non-hierarchical, that means that at some point,
>it has to stop being relevant which relationship came first.
Even if it's *not* relevant which relationship came first, I still think
it's relevant to respect the other parts of someone's life, including
zir other relationships.
Now, what one *does* to show respect is the real question.
If I'm interested in someone who has just started a new relationship,
one way I show respect is by not coming on too strong until I have a
good idea of what's going on with that relationship and in what ways the
person's life might be open to include me. If it turns out to be a
casual relationship that doesn't affect zir life much, then I would
probably go ahead and express interest more strongly. Once the other
relationship is settled down some, I might go ahead if there's room.
>But then, the issue of "disruptions" is not at all cut and dried.
>Are all disruptions necessarily bad? I don't think so; some
>are good for people.
But that's for the people who are facing disruption to decide. It's not
for a third person to look in and say "Hmm, those folks need some
disruption; it'd be good for them; I think I'll give it to them."
>Is the new person always responsible for
>disruptions that happen after sie enters the picture?
No, but if the new person can guess that a disruption is likely to
occur if zie acts in certain ways, then it is more respectful, IMO, to
act to avoid the disruption.
>but what about the realm where there are no previous agreements?
You can go by intuition and/or ask. My tendency is to be cautious until
I know where the people stand with each other (previous agreements or
not).
>As an extreme example, say I meet somebody who tells
>me he is separated from his wife and filing for divorce; may-
>be he even shows me the divorce papers. If the wife is still
>hoping for a reconciliation, am I in the wrong if I date him?
No, but you might be *stupid* to date him, assuming you don't want flak
and angst from the divorce process.
>Maybe if the breakup was just last week, I should encourage
>him to give it enough time to make absolutely certain it was
>what he wanted (and probably would). But if he's been out of
>the house for six months, I'm not "disrupting" anything if I
>date him; his decision about it didn't even have anything to
>do with me.
Yep. More to the point, if he and his wife have been separated for six
months and are divorced, they don't really have a romantic/sexual
relationship to disrupt any more.
>For another thing, *what about* the needs of the partner in
>relationship "B?" Secondaries *do* have needs and rights of
>their own within their relationships,
Sure, but I thought we were talking about the decision whether to
*start* a relationship, not what to do if we've already started one.
Someone does not have needs and rights vis a vis another person (beyond
the right not to be harmed) before zie has started a relationship with
that person (or someone associated with zir).
>and if the secondary
>is expected to compromise some of hir own needs and wants
>for the primary, that should be reciprocal to at least some
>degree. Respect just can't flow only one way.
That's one of the big reasons why I am cautious about starting new
relationships with people who are just starting other new relationships.
How can the other partner be expected to compromise zir needs and wants
for me if zie hardly even knows what's going on with zir partner, let
alone how I fit into the picture?
>Also, any-
>body in any relationship, secondary, primary, whatever-ary,
>has the right to set boundaries on what sie will and won't
>accept in the relationship, and if a relationship with a
>secondary is begun with certain agreements made for the
>sake of *hir* needs and boundaries, then those agreements
>should be respected later by the primary just as agree-
>ments with the primary would be respected by the secondary.
Agreements should be kept if possible, but realistically should be
flexible to a degree because people's needs change.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
I've found a supplement that's _guaranteed_ to help you have super
high-powered workouts and it's also guaranteed to help your muscles grow.
It's strong enough to dissolve the strongest rocks but gentle enough for a
baby's skin. It actually gets absorbed by your stomach lining and is then
incorporated into every single muscle cell. It's an ancient supplement
used secretly by Roman Olympiad athletes and now is used by the most elite
of the elite of professional bodybuilders.
It's called water. Get it now before the FDA makes it illegal!
--pec...@aol.com
'mathochist' Angela Long
Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>Jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>>>Another way of saying this is not showing respect for a relationship
>>>that came before you. <----this is an important issue to me.
>>Does "came before you" *always* mean "more important than you?"
>Do you only show respect for things that are more important than you?
Of course not. But "showing respect for a relationship which
came before you" seems to me to usually include "operating
one's own relationship only within the boundaries of the other
relationship (both agreements and things that are not agreed
to but are potential disruptions)." It often seems to mean
"defer to whatever one's partner's first partner wants." But
if what I want differs from what the first partner wants, and
if there is no agreement in place saying that the first part-
ner's wants will always come first, then there isn't any de
facto reason I should be the one to give up my own wants.
Example: A has a secondary-type partner, B; A meets C; A
and C want to form a primary relationship; B doesn't like it.
Should C defer to B's wants, just because B came first? I
don't think so; even if A's relationship with C threatens to
break up hir relationship with B, it's up to A, not to C, to
decide whether that's acceptable. It doesn't make sense for
C to place *more* value on A's and B's relationship than A
hirself does.
>Even if it's *not* relevant which relationship came first, I still think
>it's relevant to respect the other parts of someone's life, including
>zir other relationships.
Of course. But "respect" means different things, then.
>>But then, the issue of "disruptions" is not at all cut and dried.
>>Are all disruptions necessarily bad? I don't think so; some
>>are good for people.
>But that's for the people who are facing disruption to decide. It's not
>for a third person to look in and say "Hmm, those folks need some
>disruption; it'd be good for them; I think I'll give it to them."
I don't think a third person *can* decide this on hir own.
(Sie can make a bitch of hirself by pushing, and that would
be wrong, but it's not going to cause much of a disruption
if both partners ignore/reject hir attempts.) I think it
has to be up to the person in the middle to decide whether
what sie wants in one relationship is worth disrupting ano-
ther over. Sie should definitely decide that with the feel-
ings of the to-be-disrupted partner, and hir obligations to
that person, in mind, but it has to be up to the hinge per-
son to make the judgment call as to whether hir own wants
and needs are strong enough to outweigh any negative effect
on hir partner. As it is with anything else sie does with
hir life.
>>Is the new person always responsible for
>>disruptions that happen after sie enters the picture?
>No, but if the new person can guess that a disruption is likely to
>occur if zie acts in certain ways, then it is more respectful, IMO, to
>act to avoid the disruption.
What if the alternative is a disruption to hirself (and/or
to someone else, such as the hinge partner)? Putting others
ahead of oneself may be a nice Christian ethic, but doing
that 100% of the time results in one's own needs never being
met.
>>but what about the realm where there are no previous agreements?
>You can go by intuition and/or ask. My tendency is to be cautious until
>I know where the people stand with each other (previous agreements or
I don't put much stock in "intuition." Ask, definitely,
but people don't always give you honest answers; when you
get answers, though, I don't see what you can do but take
people at their word, since it's not feasible, and strikes
me as very disrespectful, to treat everyone as if they
were not being honest.
>>As an extreme example, say I meet somebody who tells
>>me he is separated from his wife and filing for divorce; may-
>>be he even shows me the divorce papers. If the wife is still
>>hoping for a reconciliation, am I in the wrong if I date him?
>No, but you might be *stupid* to date him, assuming you don't want flak
>and angst from the divorce process.
It would feel wrong to me to reject a partner who could be
very good for me, and I for hir, just because of a bratty
ex or other. It would be punishing *us* for the other's
brattiness. If nobody wanted to be subject to angst from
a former relationship, then most divorced people (myself
included) wouldn't ever get to form new relationships.
>>For another thing, *what about* the needs of the partner in
>>relationship "B?" Secondaries *do* have needs and rights of
>>their own within their relationships,
>Sure, but I thought we were talking about the decision whether to
>*start* a relationship, not what to do if we've already started one.
I don't see how the two can really be separated. As soon
as you start talking to someone, once you get to the point
where you even know the person well enough to know you'd
*want* a relationship with hir, you *have* a relationship
of some sort. The decision then is always whether to al-
low that relationship to *change* in certain ways, not
really whether to *start* a relationship at all.
>>and if the secondary
>>is expected to compromise some of hir own needs and wants
>>for the primary, that should be reciprocal to at least some
>>degree. Respect just can't flow only one way.
>That's one of the big reasons why I am cautious about starting new
>relationships with people who are just starting other new relationships.
>How can the other partner be expected to compromise zir needs and wants
>for me if zie hardly even knows what's going on with zir partner, let
>alone how I fit into the picture?
It seems to me it would be *easier* to figure out how
things will work if both relationships start at the same
time, so all the rules and routines are being established
at once, than if a set of routines is already established
and a new person comes in and the routines must be re-
worked. If B and C both want A to spend a holiday alone
with them, there's going to be less resentment and upset
if A and B didn't already have an established routine of
spending holidays alone together.
--
-- Angi
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>Do you only show respect for things that are more important than you?
>Of course not. But "showing respect for a relationship which
>came before you" seems to me to usually include "operating
>one's own relationship only within the boundaries of the other
>relationship (both agreements and things that are not agreed
>to but are potential disruptions)."
I don't agree that's what "showing respect for a previous relationship"
has to mean, or even what it usually means.
>Example: A has a secondary-type partner, B; A meets C; A
>and C want to form a primary relationship; B doesn't like it.
>Should C defer to B's wants, just because B came first?
It depends. Showing respect does not always involve deferring to someone
else's wants. It means acknowledging that person, communicating with
zir, finding out what you can about zir and zir wants/needs and doing
what you can to take them into account.
>It doesn't make sense for
>C to place *more* value on A's and B's relationship than A
>hirself does.
It is respectful for C to assume the relationship is valuable until zie
has sufficient evidence to the contrary.
>>But that's for the people who are facing disruption to decide. It's not
>>for a third person to look in and say "Hmm, those folks need some
>>disruption; it'd be good for them; I think I'll give it to them."
>
>I don't think a third person *can* decide this on hir own.
>(Sie can make a bitch of hirself by pushing, and that would
>be wrong, but it's not going to cause much of a disruption
>if both partners ignore/reject hir attempts.)
I disagree. Harrassment/pushing/manipulation can be very disrupting even
if you see it for what it is and attempt to ignore/reject it.
>>No, but if the new person can guess that a disruption is likely to
>>occur if zie acts in certain ways, then it is more respectful, IMO, to
>>act to avoid the disruption.
>What if the alternative is a disruption to hirself (and/or
>to someone else, such as the hinge partner)?
I don't see how it could be, if we're talking about deciding whether to
get into a new relationship, rather than talking about an ongoing,
existing relationship.
>>>but what about the realm where there are no previous agreements?
>
>>You can go by intuition and/or ask. My tendency is to be cautious until
>>I know where the people stand with each other (previous agreements or
>
>I don't put much stock in "intuition." Ask, definitely,
>but people don't always give you honest answers
If you reject both of those methods, then there *is* no way for you to
ascertain what to do.
>>>As an extreme example, say I meet somebody who tells
>>>me he is separated from his wife and filing for divorce; may-
>>>be he even shows me the divorce papers. If the wife is still
>>>hoping for a reconciliation, am I in the wrong if I date him?
>
>>No, but you might be *stupid* to date him, assuming you don't want flak
>>and angst from the divorce process.
>
>It would feel wrong to me to reject a partner who could be
>very good for me, and I for hir, just because of a bratty
>ex or other.
It depends on whether you think the partner's potential goodness-for-you
outweighs the real flak and angst. I certainly wouldn't make a choice to
pursue a partner who's got a lot of real shit going on just because I
can imagine some fantasy situation where we'd be really good for each
other. If I am going to get involved in a relationship, it's got to be
good *now* and have a reasonable chance of staying that way.
Relationships are difficult enough without choosing the ones that
involve a lot of flak with other people.
>>>For another thing, *what about* the needs of the partner in
>>>relationship "B?" Secondaries *do* have needs and rights of
>>>their own within their relationships,
>
>>Sure, but I thought we were talking about the decision whether to
>>*start* a relationship, not what to do if we've already started one.
>
>I don't see how the two can really be separated. As soon
>as you start talking to someone, once you get to the point
>where you even know the person well enough to know you'd
>*want* a relationship with hir, you *have* a relationship
>of some sort.
Of *some* sort, yes, but not yet the kind I thought we were talking
about (an actual sexual/romantic relationship). A potential such
relationship is not the same as an actual one. E.g., just because you've
talked to someone and y'all have determined you wouldn't kick each other
out of bed, it doesn't mean you automatically have "secondary's rights"
with zir.
>>That's one of the big reasons why I am cautious about starting new
>>relationships with people who are just starting other new relationships.
>>How can the other partner be expected to compromise zir needs and wants
>>for me if zie hardly even knows what's going on with zir partner, let
>>alone how I fit into the picture?
>It seems to me it would be *easier* to figure out how
>things will work if both relationships start at the same
>time, so all the rules and routines are being established
>at once,
In some cases, perhaps. But I prefer adjusting structures to building
them.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Are you deliberately setting out to act like an Ayn Rand character, or
did it just happen? -- bru...@teleport.com
piranha
In article <58ckf7$9...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>
>> i would probably avoid any relationship with somebody who does
>> not want me to meet zir other partners. it's all good and well
>> to trust, but i trust my own insights a lot better than anyone
>
>Do the above hold no matter what the nature of the other relation-
>ship(s)? What if all the other relationships are secondary-level,
>or "occasionally dating," or fuckbuddies?
if the other relationships are secondary, yes, i want to meet/
talk to those people. i've seen too many secondaries hurt by
being truly secondary when it came to consideration, and i am
not inclined to contribute to something like that.
occasional dates don't effect me, if we limit dates to non-
sexual events. as soon as sex is part of the equation i get
antsy to know the people, because sex can have such far-reach-
ing consequences.
>Does the insistence on
>having other partner(s) present to decide major issues hold even
>if you are the primary, and the other partner(s) are secondary?
yes. our actions have repercussions for them -- if we had a
child, if we moved, if we stopped having safe sex with each
other. i am not saying i'd give them equal say, but i would
want to know how they feel about it, and whether there are
bad feelings that maybe i can do something about. ie. when
my primary G and i moved, zir secondary M ended up moving in
with us, which changed the equation quite a bit. had i not
considered M that might never have come up (it was a good
thing that it did, it improved the entire relationship).
as i said before, i don't do the primary/secondary model very
well; i am much more non-hierarchically inclined.
>If your potential partner has a handful of other people sie has
>dated a few times each, is it important to you to show each of
>those people that you are not a threat?
not particularly; but when their relationships get to the point
where it's no longer casual dating, then i want to meet if it
is at all possible.
>> but i do think that one can disrupt a
>> relationship that was not previously in trouble.
>
>I think it may be more accurate to say that one can disrupt a
>relationship that didn't previously *know* it was in trouble. [...]
that too. however, i still see a possibility to disrupt a rel-
ationship that wasn't in trouble at all. i can see NRE dis-
rupting what previously was a very comfortable relationship for
both partners, in which neither had disagreements that were
covered up for the time being. especially NRE, i'd say, cause
some people really get consumed by that, and suddenly the entire
old relationship gets shunted aside, even tho there was nothing
wrong with it.
>But the new
>person doesn't usually *create* those disagreements; they
>were there all along, just waiting to be uncovered.
sure, that can happen. but if NRE is the culprit, the new per-
son does bear responsibility (i distinguish between responsi-
bility and blame quite clearly). i've seen this handled both
well and not so well by the new person, so zir behaviour does
very clearly have a bearing on what happens in the established
relationship.
-piranha
'mathochist' Angela Long
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>Do the above hold no matter what the nature of the other relation-
>>ship(s)? What if all the other relationships are secondary-level,
>>or "occasionally dating," or fuckbuddies?
> if the other relationships are secondary, yes, i want to meet/
> talk to those people. i've seen too many secondaries hurt by
> being truly secondary when it came to consideration, and i am
> not inclined to contribute to something like that.
That's a good attitude. But it doesn't seem to me to apply to
*all* secondary relationships. I'm thinking, for example, of
a guy I had dated (and slept with) a few times when I met my
last partner. I think I would have been rather put off if my
new/potential partner had insisted on meeting this guy. (And
any other person I had in the "relationship within which sex
may be happening" list.) That just wasn't the nature of that
relationship.
>>Does the insistence on
>>having other partner(s) present to decide major issues hold even
>>if you are the primary, and the other partner(s) are secondary?
> yes. our actions have repercussions for them -- if we had a
> child, if we moved, if we stopped having safe sex with each
> other. i am not saying i'd give them equal say, but i would
> want to know how they feel about it, and whether there are
> bad feelings that maybe i can do something about. ie. when
I wish my last partner's other had been that considerate. I
would like to think I would be, in a primary-like role, but
I have not had the impression that most primaries considered
secondaries important to include in major decisions.
> as i said before, i don't do the primary/secondary model very
> well; i am much more non-hierarchically inclined.
Me, too.
>>If your potential partner has a handful of other people sie has
>>dated a few times each, is it important to you to show each of
>>those people that you are not a threat?
> not particularly; but when their relationships get to the point
> where it's no longer casual dating, then i want to meet if it
> is at all possible.
But that line between "casual dating" and "more" is so hard
to draw.
>>> but i do think that one can disrupt a
>>> relationship that was not previously in trouble.
>>I think it may be more accurate to say that one can disrupt a
>>relationship that didn't previously *know* it was in trouble. [...]
> that too. however, i still see a possibility to disrupt a rel-
> ationship that wasn't in trouble at all. i can see NRE dis-
> rupting what previously was a very comfortable relationship for
> both partners, in which neither had disagreements that were
> covered up for the time being. especially NRE, i'd say, cause
> some people really get consumed by that, and suddenly the entire
> old relationship gets shunted aside, even tho there was nothing
> wrong with it.
I would say it was the shunting aside that caused the disrup-
tion, not the NRE.
>>But the new
>>person doesn't usually *create* those disagreements; they
>>were there all along, just waiting to be uncovered.
> sure, that can happen. but if NRE is the culprit, the new per-
> son does bear responsibility (i distinguish between responsi-
> bility and blame quite clearly). i've seen this handled both
> well and not so well by the new person, so zir behaviour does
> very clearly have a bearing on what happens in the established
> relationship.
I think the hinge person has much more responsibility; the
main responsibility of the new person is to keep the hinge
person reminded of hirs, it seems to me. It's that shunting
aside that can cause real problems, and that's the action of
the hinge person; the new person can try to prevent it, but
may not be able to.
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>Do you only show respect for things that are more important than you?
>>Of course not. But "showing respect for a relationship which
>>came before you" seems to me to usually include "operating
>>one's own relationship only within the boundaries of the other
>>relationship (both agreements and things that are not agreed
>>to but are potential disruptions)."
>I don't agree that's what "showing respect for a previous relationship"
>has to mean, or even what it usually means.
Then we're back to the question: what, exactly, *does* it mean?
>>Example: A has a secondary-type partner, B; A meets C; A
>>and C want to form a primary relationship; B doesn't like it.
>>Should C defer to B's wants, just because B came first?
>It depends. Showing respect does not always involve deferring to someone
>else's wants. It means acknowledging that person, communicating with
>zir, finding out what you can about zir and zir wants/needs and doing
>what you can to take them into account.
If C already knows B's wants (that sie "doesn't like it"),
it seems to me all that must have been done already.
>>It doesn't make sense for
>>C to place *more* value on A's and B's relationship than A
>>hirself does.
>It is respectful for C to assume the relationship is valuable until zie
>has sufficient evidence to the contrary.
"Valuable" is not black and white. It makes no sense for C
to assume the relationship is more valuable than anything
else, if sie has no reason to believe it is.
>>>But that's for the people who are facing disruption to decide. It's not
>>>for a third person to look in and say "Hmm, those folks need some
>>>disruption; it'd be good for them; I think I'll give it to them."
>>I don't think a third person *can* decide this on hir own.
>>(Sie can make a bitch of hirself by pushing, and that would
>>be wrong, but it's not going to cause much of a disruption
>>if both partners ignore/reject hir attempts.)
>I disagree. Harrassment/pushing/manipulation can be very disrupting even
>if you see it for what it is and attempt to ignore/reject it.
Harassment and pushing can be disruptive to the people, but
I don't see how it can disrupt their *relationship* if they
don't let it, unless maybe the added stress in general just
makes them more prone to fight.
"Manipulation," I don't believe in. Except for threats or
outright deception, people do what they want to do, and every
time I've seen the word "manipulation" applied to a situation,
it's been by somebody who was trying to excuse somebody from
responsibility for hir own choices. ("It's not hir fault, sie
was manipulated." IOW "The devil made hir do it" -- yeahright.)
>>>No, but if the new person can guess that a disruption is likely to
>>>occur if zie acts in certain ways, then it is more respectful, IMO, to
>>>act to avoid the disruption.
>>What if the alternative is a disruption to hirself (and/or
>>to someone else, such as the hinge partner)?
>I don't see how it could be, if we're talking about deciding whether to
>get into a new relationship, rather than talking about an ongoing,
>existing relationship.
"Getting into" a relationship isn't a discrete event in time.
By the time you know you want a relationship with someone, you
must have some want invested in that, and it would be at least
a small "disruption" to you to lose out on what you want. It
may be a very large disruption for both you and the hinge part-
ner, if you already have strong feelings for each other (and
feelings don't wait for permission to "start a relationship"
to be given). And there can be other kinds of disruptions.
I was once "vetoed" a couple months into a relationship and
at the same time told not to go anywhere near the person, in-
cluding not entering any room sie was in, not using the com-
puter lab at school if sie was using it, not using the irc
channel if sie was there, not walking to class until sie had
cleared the hallway... apparently my doing any of those
things would, in the other's opinion, cause a "disruption"
to their relationship. I tried going along with it for a
while, just to show respect by humoring them, and it was a
major disruption to me.
>>>>but what about the realm where there are no previous agreements?
>>>You can go by intuition and/or ask. My tendency is to be cautious until
>>>I know where the people stand with each other (previous agreements or
>>I don't put much stock in "intuition." Ask, definitely,
>>but people don't always give you honest answers
>If you reject both of those methods, then there *is* no way for you to
>ascertain what to do.
I don't reject those methods. I have no "intuition," and
have never found others' "intuitions" about me to be *at
all* accurate, so "intuition" doesn't impress me much.
And asking, I *do*, and I take people at their words...
only to find out later, too often, that they were not
honest. But what's the point of asking, if I have to
follow it up by acting as if the person was lying?
>>It would feel wrong to me to reject a partner who could be
>>very good for me, and I for hir, just because of a bratty
>>ex or other.
>It depends on whether you think the partner's potential goodness-for-you
>outweighs the real flak and angst. I certainly wouldn't make a choice to
>pursue a partner who's got a lot of real shit going on just because I
>can imagine some fantasy situation where we'd be really good for each
>other. If I am going to get involved in a relationship, it's got to be
>good *now* and have a reasonable chance of staying that way.
If it wasn't "good now," how would I know it "could be
very good" in the future?
>Relationships are difficult enough without choosing the ones that
>involve a lot of flak with other people.
Anybody who chooses a relationship with me will have to
deal with flak from my ex-husband, forever (or at least
for twelve or fifteen more years, until my youngest child
with him is grown). If everyone is reluctant to "choose
the relationships that involve a lot of flak from other
people," I'll never have another relationship.
>>>>For another thing, *what about* the needs of the partner in
>>>>relationship "B?" Secondaries *do* have needs and rights of
>>>>their own within their relationships,
>>>Sure, but I thought we were talking about the decision whether to
>>>*start* a relationship, not what to do if we've already started one.
>>I don't see how the two can really be separated. As soon
>>as you start talking to someone, once you get to the point
>>where you even know the person well enough to know you'd
>>*want* a relationship with hir, you *have* a relationship
>>of some sort.
>Of *some* sort, yes, but not yet the kind I thought we were talking
>about (an actual sexual/romantic relationship). A potential such
>relationship is not the same as an actual one. E.g., just because you've
>talked to someone and y'all have determined you wouldn't kick each other
>out of bed, it doesn't mean you automatically have "secondary's rights"
>with zir.
Whoa, suddenly I'm not sure I can identify with what you're
talking about at all. For one thing, my relationships have
always *started* with sex, although I can't see the mere
fact of sex as changing the whole nature of the process.
For me, it's 1. be attracted, 2. make sure a sexual rela-
tionship is okay, 3. while the sexual relationship is go-
ing on, if mutual desires for other things develop, nego-
tiate those things (more time / living together / levels of
commitment / etc.). Without the sex coming first, it would
be "friendship" rather than "sexual relationship." There
are still needs and rights within what is called "friendship."
At least, there are for me. For example, as a friend, I need
to be talked to about problems my friend has with me, I need
honesty and dependability from my friend, basic respectful
treatment, caring and consideration, inclusion, etc. In many
ways, "friendship" and "relationship" really do not differ.
--
-- Angi
Jill Lundquist
In article <32A5CE...@elision.com>, SwiftRain <swi...@elision.com> wrote:
>it is my ethic to never intentionally harm another.
>so if it is a question of disrupting a relationship intentionally, for
IMO, it is possible (and common) to do a great deal of harm
unintentionally. There is to a certain extent an obligation
not to be negligent, to put in a reasonable effort to discover
when harm is likely to occur in a given situation and avoid it,
even if the action you are doing may not cause harm in some other
situations.
Naturally, the burning ethical question is how extensive that
obligation is. As a trivial example, I don't get into sexual
situations with married or otherwise attached people unless I talk
to the spouse first or in some way open a line of communication with
that person. (this dates back to when I was seventeen and dated
someone who told me very believably that his primary girlfriend knew
and accepted what was going on, while telling her he was "monogamous
by nature.") Yet a friend of mine believes that this is not her
obligation, that it is between her lover and his or her partner.
--
Jill Lundquist ji...@qualcomm.com DoD #882
"They say travel broadens the mind,
so I went over the falls in a barrel." (Thomas Dolby)
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: Yes, there's a difference between disrupting something just by
: being involved at all, and going out of your way to cause a dis-
: ruption.
Or, not being all that concerned about it if you (generic
you) do...
: >Interesting. Above, you say disruption is often necessary for growth.
: >Here, you say that you would rather break up with C rather than endure
: >the disruption of re-negotiating your relationship with C. But what if
: >re-negotiating would be a growth experience for you and C? You seem to
: >be taking contradictory positions on the value of disruption.
: I don't see any contradiction. Personal growth sometimes leads
: *away* from relationships, and I'm concerned with growth of
: people, not of the abstract entities that are relationships.
This concept bothers me.
All I can say is that anyone who told me they weren't at all
concerned about the abstract entities that are my
relationships.... well, as they say, "that kink is OK -- way
the hell over there."
No judgement of their particular kink -- I just want NONE of
it.
We can weigh, measure, catalogue people.
We can't do the same to relationships but, they still exist
and, some of us value them more than anything else in this
life.
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: Of course not. But "showing respect for a relationship which
: came before you" seems to me to usually include "operating
: one's own relationship only within the boundaries of the other
: relationship (both agreements and things that are not agreed
: to but are potential disruptions)." It often seems to mean
: "defer to whatever one's partner's first partner wants." But
: if what I want differs from what the first partner wants, and
: if there is no agreement in place saying that the first part-
: ner's wants will always come first, then there isn't any de
: facto reason I should be the one to give up my own wants.
It has helped me when I remind myself that my needs, while
very important, aren't always the most important.
: I don't put much stock in "intuition." Ask, definitely,
: but people don't always give you honest answers; when you
: get answers, though, I don't see what you can do but take
: people at their word, since it's not feasible, and strikes
: me as very disrespectful, to treat everyone as if they
: were not being honest.
This ignores the *fact* that sometimes people either don't
know what they want, or can't tell you if they do. This
ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
don't want to.
This ignores the fact that we are -- most of us -- awfully,
painfully, sometimes tragically human.
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: Do the above hold no matter what the nature of the other relation-
: ship(s)? What if all the other relationships are secondary-level,
: or "occasionally dating," or fuckbuddies? Does the insistence on
: having other partner(s) present to decide major issues hold even
: if you are the primary, and the other partner(s) are secondary?
: If your potential partner has a handful of other people sie has
: dated a few times each, is it important to you to show each of
: those people that you are not a threat?
I'll answer this one.
Why, yes, it is. I care if I harm other people, even if
they are fucked up, uncommunitive, illogical basket cases
who can't handle the rigors of communication as the one true
way of solving all issues.
Does that sound snarky, or passionate to the most of you?
: <slightly out of order>
: > naw. well, yeah, what _about_ my needs? i do think that if
: > i am the new partner i deserve consideration as well, and i do
: > not want to have to grovel, or to defer politely to the senior
: > relationship partner.
: Well-said (applause). Respect must go both ways. I can't stand
: situations where "secondary" feels like "submissive" or "slave."
And yet we have seen posts where you have set up situations
where the 'others' are just secondaries -- see above -- see
previous posts.
: I think it may be more accurate to say that one can disrupt a
: relationship that didn't previously *know* it was in trouble.
Yes, that can be true. It can also be true that we don't
know because it isn't' convenient to know. We can fool
ourselves, step into situations with our hands over our eyes
and our thumbs in our ears and say that it wasn't our fault
becuase we can't have known.
: The potential, at least, usually had to have been there to
: begin with, and in fact "disruptions" are often actually dis-
: coveries of underlying disagreements which a new person may
: have provided the opportunity for discovering.
If I am going through pain and angst in a longstanding
relatinship due to disrespectful behaviour on the part of a
newcomer, I guess I may be forgiven if I don't rush right
out and buy a money order for the relationship therapy in
the name of the newcomer.
: But the new
: person doesn't usually *create* those disagreements; they
: were there all along, just waiting to be uncovered.
So then, it's not the newcomer's fault -- for anything -- is
it?
'mathochist' Angela Long
jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
>: Do the above hold no matter what the nature of the other relation-
>: ship(s)? What if all the other relationships are secondary-level,
>: or "occasionally dating," or fuckbuddies? Does the insistence on
>: having other partner(s) present to decide major issues hold even
>: if you are the primary, and the other partner(s) are secondary?
>: If your potential partner has a handful of other people sie has
>: dated a few times each, is it important to you to show each of
>: those people that you are not a threat?
>I'll answer this one.
>Why, yes, it is.
As I said to piranha, I think that's generally a good attitude,
and I only wish my last partner's other (or, for that matter,
*any* of my past partners' others in poly relationships I've
been in) felt that way toward me.
But I still don't think including other partners in major de-
cisions, or meeting other partners and showing you're "not a
threat," applies to *all* other partners. It depends on the
nature of the relationships. I can't imagine being required
to introduce a perspective partner to *everyone I know* be-
fore getting involved with that person, no matter what the
nature of each of those relationships is. Serious partners,
yes, definitely; occasional fuckbuddies, no. There are
those who have casual playpartners numbering in the dozens.
Can you imagine those people lining up *all* their partners
for a meeting when they're considering moving out of town?
I've sometimes used the moving-out-of-town question as a
sort of relationship gauge, in fact. To me, a partner is
someone I'd involve in the discussion before deciding to
move out of town. A friend is someone I'd tell after I
knew I was moving out of town, and keep in touch with af-
ter the move. An aquaintance is someone I might or might
not get around to telling before the move, and probably
wouldn't keep in touch with afterwards. Sex certainly
doesn't define it; I've had fuckbuddies I wouldn't put
above the "acquaintance" level.
So, of all the people your (potential) partner knows,
which ones would you find necessary to meet, or to in-
clude in major decisions? How do you choose from among
the friends, the partners, the fuckbuddies, the work
pals, the now-and-then dates, the acquaintances, the
playpartners, or do you involve them all, even if they
number into the hundreds? Or do you let your partner
define which ones should be involved, and how?
>I care if I harm other people, even if
>they are fucked up, uncommunitive, illogical basket cases
>who can't handle the rigors of communication as the one true
>way of solving all issues.
Um, I don't see what being basket cases has to do with
what level of relationship they have.
>: <slightly out of order>
>: > naw. well, yeah, what _about_ my needs? i do think that if
>: > i am the new partner i deserve consideration as well, and i do
>: > not want to have to grovel, or to defer politely to the senior
>: > relationship partner.
>: Well-said (applause). Respect must go both ways. I can't stand
>: situations where "secondary" feels like "submissive" or "slave."
>And yet we have seen posts where you have set up situations
>where the 'others' are just secondaries -- see above -- see
>previous posts.
Even a fuckbuddy deserves consideration for hir needs, but
involving hir in major life decisions may not be an appro-
priate way to show that consideration. And "secondary part-
ner" means, at least to most people here, something much
more than "fuckbuddy." As a new partner in a relationship,
one of my needs is to be able to define what kind of partner-
ship I need to have in order to be in that relationship. I
need to be able to say, "I can't handle just being a fuck-
buddy here, I need to be a more serious partner than that"
and have the others value my relationship enough to give
consideration to whether what I need can fit with them...
and if it can't, I need them to be honest about it.
>: I think it may be more accurate to say that one can disrupt a
>: relationship that didn't previously *know* it was in trouble.
>Yes, that can be true. It can also be true that we don't
>know because it isn't' convenient to know. We can fool
>ourselves, step into situations with our hands over our eyes
>and our thumbs in our ears and say that it wasn't our fault
>becuase we can't have known.
This seems to assume that people *can* always know every-
thing, which seems to me very obviously untrue. If an
issue has never had opportunity to come up before, then
how can a couple possibly *know* that they disagree on it?
>: The potential, at least, usually had to have been there to
>: begin with, and in fact "disruptions" are often actually dis-
>: coveries of underlying disagreements which a new person may
>: have provided the opportunity for discovering.
>If I am going through pain and angst in a longstanding
>relatinship due to disrespectful behaviour on the part of a
>newcomer, I guess I may be forgiven if I don't rush right
>out and buy a money order for the relationship therapy in
>the name of the newcomer.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying
that happening to provide an opportunity for discovering
a disagreement is "disrespectful behavior?"
>: But the new
>: person doesn't usually *create* those disagreements; they
>: were there all along, just waiting to be uncovered.
>So then, it's not the newcomer's fault -- for anything -- is
>it?
It's certainly not *always* the newcomer's fault. If
there was already a disagreement or incompatibility of
some sort, and the newcomer happens to provide the op-
portunity for discussing and discovering that, then I
don't see how the underlying problem can be the new-
comer's "fault." Unless you think such problems are
better left undiscovered. But then, it would be wrong
to ever have a serious conversation with anyone, since
from your words they may be prompted to discover some
conflict they hadn't put their finger on before.
I had been undervalued, neglected, and outright abused
in my marriage for a long time when I met up with ano-
ther partner who gave me the motivation, by offering
to help financially, to get away from it. Was the
breakup his "fault?" I don't think so.
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
>: one's own relationship only within the boundaries of the other
>: relationship (both agreements and things that are not agreed
>: to but are potential disruptions)." It often seems to mean
>: "defer to whatever one's partner's first partner wants." But
>: if what I want differs from what the first partner wants, and
>: if there is no agreement in place saying that the first part-
>: ner's wants will always come first, then there isn't any de
>: facto reason I should be the one to give up my own wants.
>It has helped me when I remind myself that my needs, while
>very important, aren't always the most important.
But sometimes, they are. Or at least, rightly should be
pretty damn high on the priority list. (As mine, now.)
As a parent, I consider my children's needs most important.
I used to put my own needs absolutely last all the time. I
know better now. Cases are individual; sometimes another's
needs are more important, sometimes mine are. Ideally, com-
promises can be found to meet *everyone's* needs in a given
situation.
>: I don't put much stock in "intuition." Ask, definitely,
>: but people don't always give you honest answers; when you
>: get answers, though, I don't see what you can do but take
>: people at their word, since it's not feasible, and strikes
>: me as very disrespectful, to treat everyone as if they
>: were not being honest.
>This ignores the *fact* that sometimes people either don't
>know what they want, or can't tell you if they do. This
>ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
>don't want to.
So, what can be done about that?
--
-- Angi
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>It depends. Showing respect does not always involve deferring to someone
>>else's wants. It means acknowledging that person, communicating with
>>zir, finding out what you can about zir and zir wants/needs and doing
>>what you can to take them into account.
>If C already knows B's wants (that sie "doesn't like it"),
>it seems to me all that must have been done already.
Incorrect. "Doesn't like it" encompasses a wide range of feeling and can
be addressed in a variety of ways. Hearing someone "doesn't like it" is
not at all the same as communicating with zir, finding out about zir
wants/needs, and finding out what can be done to accommodate zir.
>>It is respectful for C to assume the relationship is valuable until zie
>>has sufficient evidence to the contrary.
>"Valuable" is not black and white. It makes no sense for C
>to assume the relationship is more valuable than anything
>else, if sie has no reason to believe it is.
When I get involved with someone, I almost always assume that zir
existing relationships -- the ones I hear about -- are more important
than my new relationship with zir, until I get evidence to the contrary
(evidence can be statements and/or observations).
This is both about showing respect and about my own safety.
>>Harrassment/pushing/manipulation can be very disrupting even
>>if you see it for what it is and attempt to ignore/reject it.
>Harassment and pushing can be disruptive to the people, but
>I don't see how it can disrupt their *relationship* if they
>don't let it, unless maybe the added stress in general just
>makes them more prone to fight.
The added stress factor is extremely important. I think a large
percentage of relationships that fail do so because they couldn't handle
the level of stress they were subjected to, not because of inherent
flaws in compatibility under more normal conditions.
>"Manipulation," I don't believe in. Except for threats or
>outright deception, people do what they want to do, and every
>time I've seen the word "manipulation" applied to a situation,
>it's been by somebody who was trying to excuse somebody from
>responsibility for hir own choices. ("It's not hir fault, sie
>was manipulated." IOW "The devil made hir do it" -- yeahright.)
I agree that some people use "I was manipulated" as an excuse to dodge
responsibility. But manipulation definitely exists. It is more effective
on some people than on others. You have said you're not particularly
sensitive to social cues, so it might not be very effective on you, much
of the time. But on people who are sensitive to those things, it can
cause a lot of stress as the person tries to figure out why zie is
suddenly feeling pressured and/or guilty and tries to figure out how to
respond.
>"Getting into" a relationship isn't a discrete event in time.
>By the time you know you want a relationship with someone, you
>must have some want invested in that, and it would be at least
>a small "disruption" to you to lose out on what you want. It
>may be a very large disruption for both you and the hinge part-
>ner, if you already have strong feelings for each other (and
>feelings don't wait for permission to "start a relationship"
>to be given). And there can be other kinds of disruptions.
It's true that a relationship isn't a discrete event, but there is still
a difference between a new or potential relationship and an ongoing one.
There might be exceptions here or there, but in the majority of cases, I
think the possibility of personal disruption as a result of a new or
potential interest is much less than the possibility of personal
disruption as a result of changing an existing, ongoing relationship.
I accept the possibility of being mildly personally disrupted when I
pursue interests in other people. I do have some control over my
feelings at the beginning; I can encourage them or discourage them. I do
not encourage them until I have evidence that pursuing a relationship
with someone will not significantly disrupt zir other important
relationships. I can't completely control my feelings, so sometimes I
get a bit disrupted if I get interested in someone and then can't pursue
it the way I'd like, but I willingly accept that risk.
>I was once "vetoed" a couple months into a relationship and
>at the same time told not to go anywhere near the person, in-
>cluding not entering any room sie was in, not using the com-
>puter lab at school if sie was using it, not using the irc
>channel if sie was there, not walking to class until sie had
>cleared the hallway... apparently my doing any of those
>things would, in the other's opinion, cause a "disruption"
>to their relationship. I tried going along with it for a
>while, just to show respect by humoring them, and it was a
>major disruption to me.
Trying to maintain that degree of control over your behavior is
inappropriate. I would agree to avoid private meetings with the person.
In some cases if significant disruption had already occurred, I might
agree temporarily not to communicate with zir. But I would not agree to
avoid being in the same room with zir.
>>>>You can go by intuition and/or ask. My tendency is to be cautious until
>>>>I know where the people stand with each other
[...]
>But what's the point of asking, if I have to
>follow it up by acting as if the person was lying?
Eh, being cautious isn't the same as acting as if someone is lying. The
person's statements are important evidence. I like having other evidence
too. Sometimes that's not possible.
>Whoa, suddenly I'm not sure I can identify with what you're
>talking about at all. For one thing, my relationships have
>always *started* with sex, although I can't see the mere
>fact of sex as changing the whole nature of the process.
>For me, it's 1. be attracted, 2. make sure a sexual rela-
>tionship is okay, 3. while the sexual relationship is go-
>ing on, if mutual desires for other things develop, nego-
>tiate those things (more time / living together / levels of
>commitment / etc.).
I would, in step 2, also ascertain the nature of other relationships zie
had to determine where my relationship with zir had room to go. For
example if zie was living with someone who didn't want another live-in
partner, I wouldn't expect that I'd end up living with zir, and I
wouldn't start the relationship if I felt strongly I'd end up hurt as a
result of wanting that.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Being frustrated is disagreeable, but the real disasters in life begin
when you get what you want. -- Irving Kristol
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> if the other relationships are secondary, yes, i want to meet/
>> talk to those people. i've seen too many secondaries hurt by
>> being truly secondary when it came to consideration, and i am
>> not inclined to contribute to something like that.
>That's a good attitude. But it doesn't seem to me to apply to
>*all* secondary relationships. I'm thinking, for example, of
>a guy I had dated (and slept with) a few times when I met my
>last partner. I think I would have been rather put off if my
>new/potential partner had insisted on meeting this guy. (And
>any other person I had in the "relationship within which sex
>may be happening" list.) That just wasn't the nature of that
>relationship.
[...]
>> yes. our actions have repercussions for them -- if we had a
>> child, if we moved, if we stopped having safe sex with each
>> other. i am not saying i'd give them equal say, but i would
>> want to know how they feel about it, and whether there are
>> bad feelings that maybe i can do something about. ie. when
>I wish my last partner's other had been that considerate. I
>would like to think I would be, in a primary-like role, but
>I have not had the impression that most primaries considered
>secondaries important to include in major decisions.
So, on the one hand, you didn't want your new partner to meet your
secondary because you decided "that wasn't the nature of that
relationship."
And on the other hand, you want your partners and their others partners
to include you in major decisions.
What about your secondary? Did he want your new partner to meet him? Did
he want to be included in decisions?
>> not particularly; but when their relationships get to the point
>> where it's no longer casual dating, then i want to meet if it
>> is at all possible.
>But that line between "casual dating" and "more" is so hard
>to draw.
But you had no problem drawing it up above. "That wasn't the nature of
that relationship." Casual dating, right?
>> sure, that can happen. but if NRE is the culprit, the new per-
>> son does bear responsibility (i distinguish between responsi-
>> bility and blame quite clearly). i've seen this handled both
>> well and not so well by the new person, so zir behaviour does
>> very clearly have a bearing on what happens in the established
>> relationship.
>I think the hinge person has much more responsibility; the
>main responsibility of the new person is to keep the hinge
>person reminded of hirs, it seems to me. It's that shunting
>aside that can cause real problems, and that's the action of
>the hinge person; the new person can try to prevent it, but
>may not be able to.
If I'm the new person and my partner is wrapped up in NRE and therefore
focused mostly on me, I will remind zir of zir obligations to other
partners (or at least ask after zir other partners and their comfort). I
figure it's easy because zie's wrapped up in me and likely to pay
attention to what I say.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Being a woman is of special interest to aspiring male transsexuals.
To actual women it is simply a good excuse not to play football.
-- Fran Lebowitz
'mathochist' Angela Long
Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> if the other relationships are secondary, yes, i want to meet/
>>> talk to those people. i've seen too many secondaries hurt by
>>> being truly secondary when it came to consideration, and i am
>>> not inclined to contribute to something like that.
>>That's a good attitude. But it doesn't seem to me to apply to
>>*all* secondary relationships. I'm thinking, for example, of
>>a guy I had dated (and slept with) a few times when I met my
>>last partner. I think I would have been rather put off if my
>>new/potential partner had insisted on meeting this guy. (And
>>any other person I had in the "relationship within which sex
>>may be happening" list.) That just wasn't the nature of that
>>relationship.
>>> yes. our actions have repercussions for them -- if we had a
>>> child, if we moved, if we stopped having safe sex with each
>>> other. i am not saying i'd give them equal say, but i would
>>> want to know how they feel about it, and whether there are
>>> bad feelings that maybe i can do something about. ie. when
>>I wish my last partner's other had been that considerate. I
>>would like to think I would be, in a primary-like role, but
>>I have not had the impression that most primaries considered
>>secondaries important to include in major decisions.
>So, on the one hand, you didn't want your new partner to meet your
>secondary because you decided "that wasn't the nature of that
>relationship."
I don't think I'd even have termed it a "secondary relationship."
Just because there was sex doesn't mean it was much above the
level of acquaintanceship.
>And on the other hand, you want your partners and their others partners
>to include you in major decisions.
When it's a *partner*, not just a fuckbuddy, yes. I would not
have wanted the guy I mentioned to include me in anything like
that.
>What about your secondary? Did he want your new partner to meet him? Did
>he want to be included in decisions?
No.
>>> not particularly; but when their relationships get to the point
>>> where it's no longer casual dating, then i want to meet if it
>>> is at all possible.
>>But that line between "casual dating" and "more" is so hard
>>to draw.
>But you had no problem drawing it up above. "That wasn't the nature of
>that relationship." Casual dating, right?
I drew the line because it was *my* relationship. It would have
been wrong for my new partner to try to impose that line for me.
>>> sure, that can happen. but if NRE is the culprit, the new per-
>>> son does bear responsibility (i distinguish between responsi-
>>> bility and blame quite clearly). i've seen this handled both
>>> well and not so well by the new person, so zir behaviour does
>>> very clearly have a bearing on what happens in the established
>>> relationship.
>>I think the hinge person has much more responsibility; the
>>main responsibility of the new person is to keep the hinge
>>person reminded of hirs, it seems to me. It's that shunting
>>aside that can cause real problems, and that's the action of
>>the hinge person; the new person can try to prevent it, but
>>may not be able to.
>If I'm the new person and my partner is wrapped up in NRE and therefore
>focused mostly on me, I will remind zir of zir obligations to other
>partners (or at least ask after zir other partners and their comfort). I
>figure it's easy because zie's wrapped up in me and likely to pay
>attention to what I say.
And that's exactly what I do. But, as I said, that's the main
responsibility -- keeping the hinge partner reminded of hir re-
sponsibilities. If the hinge partner, in spite of reminding,
still neglects hir other relationship, there's not much the new
person can be expected to do about it.
--
-- Angi
Aileen71
hi. i'm new to this group but this thread really pulled me out of lurking
fast...it helps to hear people's thoughts because I'm in a weird situation
(who isn't?) I have a boyfriend of 4 months. we can't be sexual, however,
for physical reasons. we'd agreed that i could continue my sex-only
relationships which had already existed. but 2 months ago, i met another
bi guy (it's an incestuous little circle here) with whom i clicked quite
well -- he knows my boyfriend & I was honest w/both. well, we got
involved, and for all that he knows i have strong feelings 4 my BF, he's
not as patient as he tries to be in terms of taking the BF's place. I
don't know whom to spend New Year's with, for example. to make it worse, a
good male friend of mine feels betrayed by me becuz he and the second guy
were feeling each other out as dating partners -- my friend confided in me
that he liked this guy, who then told him he was also checking me out. i
had hoped that this would make it OK with my friend, but now he's being
very distant. i think i've lost him.
as for my BF, he knows what's happening, prefers not to be told any
specific names (tho he pretty much knows who it is) and is trying just to
enjoy the time we still spend together, without questioning what's going
to happen. But the second guy is really starting to act intense - he
originally said we can take it slow, but the intensity of his efforts to
be a "boyfriend" is starting to scare me. is it unreasonable of me to hold
on to my first BF -- after all, we're not "involved" in a certain vital
sense of the word, and so by nature he cannot be my "primary" - & for all
that i'm by-the-book more compatible with the 2nd guy, my feelings 4 him
are close to but NOT stronger than 4 my BF. I totally encourage the 2nd
guy to pursue male SO's, and I've given up my sex-only partners, so is it
selfish of me to *not* promise that I could give up my BF, even as a
secondary? I don't have any female SO's (dammit!)...many bi's I know go
for polyamory in terms of being able to have MOTSS relationships while
being with a MOTOS partner -- normally i'd be fine w/ that but in the case
of my BF and the 2nd guy, who wants to be the primary, it's a bit
different since sex isn't an option with the BF.
Everyone asleep yet? If not, any thoughts?? thanks, i don't usually ever
post this long!
--acey
Mary Malmros
In article <19961211165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Aileen71 <aile...@aol.com> wrote:
>hi. i'm new to this group but this thread really pulled me out of lurking
>fast...it helps to hear people's thoughts because I'm in a weird situation
>(who isn't?) I have a boyfriend of 4 months. we can't be sexual, however,
>for physical reasons. we'd agreed that i could continue my sex-only
>relationships which had already existed. but 2 months ago, i met another
>bi guy (it's an incestuous little circle here) with whom i clicked quite
>well -- he knows my boyfriend & I was honest w/both. well, we got
>involved, and for all that he knows i have strong feelings 4 my BF, he's
>not as patient as he tries to be in terms of taking the BF's place. I
>don't know whom to spend New Year's with, for example.
Uggggggh, it's Polyamory Holiday Syndrome! Run away, run away!
This is something I've been dealing with for many a year, because it's
essentially equivalent to Queer Holiday Syndrome, or at least there's a lot
of overlap. In the polyamory context, just talking about partners and not
EVEN getting into the issue of biofamilies, there are several ways that you
can handle it, each with their pluses and minuses.
One approach is the Big Happy Family approach, where everyone gets together
to spend the holiday together.
Pluses: nobody gets shut out.
Minuses: if you're not a Big Happy Family the rest of the year, it's not
likely you'll be able to pull it off very well over the holidays. Also, if
you'd planned to spend intimate time with various partners, they're all
going to get timesliced, and this can get messy.
Another approach is the Football Party approach, where everyone gets
together in a more or less platonic manner to spend a platonic holiday
watching football or playing Pictionary or something platonic like that.
Pluses: nobody gets shut out. Also, the emotional charge/tension that may
be present if you're doing intimate time is not there.
Minuses: some folks may feel frustrated or resentful because they don't get
any intimate time. You also have the standard platonic problem of finding
an activity that everybody will enjoy.
A third approach is to spend part of the holiday with A and part with B and
part with C.
Pluses: everybody gets their intimate time.
Minuses: it's extra-stressful on you, and sometimes doesn't make anyone very
happy. If everybody has their heart set on kissing you when the apple falls
off the pole or whatever it is, some people are going to be disappointed.
Another approach is to spend the whole holiday with one person and not with
the others.
Pluses: you make one person (and maybe two, don't forget yourself) very
happy.
Minuses: if this holiday means a lot to the partner(s) that don't win the
toss, and/or if it's one of those holidays where it's really difficult to be
alone, at least one person is going to be pretty unhappy.
Finally, another approach is to refuse to observe the holiday at all.
Pluses: this can greatly decrease everybody's stress.
Minuses: see above. If Groundhog Day is really really REALLY important to
one of your partners, this decision may not make 'em happy.
And, of course, you can combine these, and come up with other solutions.
Which is best? None of 'em, or all of 'em, depending on your situation. A
lot of it has to do with how people feel about the holiday, and I've found
that it's unwise to make assumptions about this. If I were your partner,
for example, I would not care in the least how you chose to spend your New
Year's, since my preferred way to spend New Year is at home with a good book
and/or a good movie, and not careening around in the freezing dark trying to
avoid the drunks. Companionship, for me, is optional: I know that a lot of
people like to whoop it up for New Year's, and I don't mind if my partner
wants to, as long as I'm excused ;-) But if you ask half a dozen people
what New Year means to them, you'll get half a dozen answers...so, I think
it is worth asking.
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
Nobody knows as much about karate as a green belt. Just ask one.
jlam...@calarts.edu
In article <58l54n$k...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Just because there was already a problem in the relationship doesn't mean that
it's all right for you to come in and bring it to the surface. If you had a cut
and I came over and rubbed salt in it, I could say "this wouldn't hurt if you
hadn't cut yourself, so it's not _my_ fault," but in saying that I would be
missing the point, wouldn't I?
I think any relationship is going to have problems that are "beneath the
surface," and I believe that there will always be a time for those problems to
be brought to the surface and dealt with, but that time is not always "now".
About a year and a half ago, J, an ex of my then partner E, decided that zie
wanted E back. While I was away on the east coast for a few weeks, J attempted
to "steal" E from me. J wasn't exactly successful, but immediately upon
returning from the east coast, E and I's relationship mysteriously crashed and
burned: before I left, everything was great, but when I got back, kablooey!
Within a week the relationship was officially over, and within another two weeks
E and J were together. (And a few months after that J got bored with his
conquest and has seen gone on to do bigger and better people, presumably, but
that's beside the point right now.) It's not simply that E dumped me for J;
it's that J's advances brought to the surface problems that had been incipient
all along, and this was a stress that our (relatively new) relationship just
couldn't withstand.
In the immediate aftermath (the wreckage is still being sorted and sifted) as E
was rationalizing her decision, and defending J's part in what happened, zie
said: "What happened that week would have happened sooner or later anyway." Zie
was right: the underlying problems would have come to the surface eventually --
on the other hand, if it hadn't been for J, perhaps by the time they did come to
the surface, E and I would have grown closer, the relationship grown stronger,
and perhaps these problems might have been dealt with and overcome, rather than
having them tear the relationship apart, which is what happened. I still can't
help thinking that E and I could have had a good thing, if it hadn't been for J.
In some ways this is off-topic, since we are discussing what behaviour is
"respectful" of the existing relationship, presumably for the benefit of those
who have some intention of _being_ respectful, which J obviously did not.
Still, I thought that this example might be edifying. (I sure learned a hell of
a lot from it...)
**
btw, I've been out of this newsgroup for several months now: my apologies to
anyone who wrote me and didn't get a response. My life sort of went kablooey,
though in a mostly good way, around the beginning of the summer, and many an
important message got left unanswered. (I used to be jlam...@pomona.edu, in
case you couldn't guess.)
-jason
p.s. Any grammar nerd out there want to tell me the correct way to write "E and
I's relationship"? I'm sure that's wrong, but "E's and my relationship" sounds
equally bad to my ears, and my copy of _The Deluxe Transitive Vampire_ is
uncharacteristically unhelpful in this matter.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Arnold Vance
In article <58mtfa$4...@northshore.shore.net>,
Mary Malmros <mal...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <19961211165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Aileen71 <aile...@aol.com> wrote:
>Uggggggh, it's Polyamory Holiday Syndrome! Run away, run away!
>
>what New Year means to them, you'll get half a dozen answers...so, I think
>it is worth asking.
All right, since you ask. I don't see what the big problem is. As long
as you have a good calendar program. And a decent timeline scheduler.
You know, to see the critical paths that impede progress towards the goal
we all want as a team. Also, it doesn't hurt to have the artificial
intelligence module with intentionality support plugged in. With the
right tools, I'm managing quite weel.
Quickly bringing up my multi-ethnic dating system now, everything is in
place. All holidays have been accounted for, no one is left out. Over the
years I've found it's good to have 1 partner from each of the major ethnic
divisions. Helps prevent those scheduling conflicts. I've also done re-
search into the origins of the various holidays and found a great
commonality in them across different belief systems so I'm not being
n-faced about celebrating the varied holy times.
During the regular year, there's no problem either. I use the standard
Julian calendar and the 24-hour clock. I assign time to each user--I mean
lover--on what I call a timeslicing method. Each slice is sufficiently
small so that any one particular user--I mean lover--won't get locked out
indefinitely. (one unfortunate side effect is that philosophers do tend
to "starve". That's OK, as their contribution to society is negligible.)
One exception is made for lovemaking. The well-known coitus interruptus is
actually due to the system--I mean people--not having the ability to
"shut off" the timeslicing. So that capability is built-in. I have re-
ceived complaints about the usage of that capability--I won't say from
whom. Generally speaking, one's point of view is highly conditioned by
one's point of view. It's so difficult to please everyone.
Merry Whatever to all,
-arn
P.S. Everyone should know the risks of playing Pictionary. Remember,
only abstinence can prevent...
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: >angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: >: Yes, there's a difference between disrupting something just by
: >: being involved at all, and going out of your way to cause a dis-
: >: ruption.
: >Or, not being all that concerned about it if you (generic
: >you) do...
: You can be very concerned when you discover a disruption-in-
: progress, and still conclude that ending the disruption at
: all costs is not the right course of action. Or that nothing
: you could do would end the disruption, once it's begun.
Or that maybe you should stop whatever it was you were doing
until the disruption is sorted out?
Why was that left out as a possibility, Angi?
: >This concept bothers me.
: >All I can say is that anyone who told me they weren't at all
: >concerned about the abstract entities that are my
: >relationships.... well, as they say, "that kink is OK -- way
: >the hell over there."
: >We can weigh, measure, catalogue people.
: >We can't do the same to relationships but, they still exist
: >and, some of us value them more than anything else in this
: >life.
: The concept of valuing a *relationship* more than anything
: else, specifically more than the people in it, bothers me.
: Very much.
I'm left wondering where you get that I value the
relationship more than the people themselves. I said it was
very important. We needn't go to extremes, black and white
examples, and hyperbole, in everything, Angi.
[examples of unhealthy relationships deleted]
These, while real, do not justify dismissing or devaluing
mostly healthy and happy relationships.
: If your relationships are good for you and for everyone else
: in them, and you value them for that reason, then I will re-
: spect your relationships, not out of concern for the "rela-
: tionship," but out of concern for *you* and your partners.
That will do. I don't care what you call it as long as it
happens.
: If you were in an abusive relationship, though, I wouldn't
: work overhard to preserve it. [...]
Hyperbole deleted.
: And if *you* didn't value
: your relationship much, I wouldn't see much point to my
: valuing it *more* than you do.
I don't know where you got this but, ok, I guess so.
: The value of your relation-
: ships comes purely from the value they provide to the people
: in them... just as the value of any other inanimate, un-
: feeling thing comes from the value it provides to some*one*.
I find the fact you compare a relationship with ownership of
a decent lawn mower, which I can replace easly if it becomes
broken, quite insightful.
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: >angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: >: Of course not. But "showing respect for a relationship which
: >: came before you" seems to me to usually include "operating
: >: one's own relationship only within the boundaries of the other
: >: relationship (both agreements and things that are not agreed
: >: to but are potential disruptions)." It often seems to mean
: >: "defer to whatever one's partner's first partner wants." But
: >: if what I want differs from what the first partner wants, and
: >: if there is no agreement in place saying that the first part-
: >: ner's wants will always come first, then there isn't any de
: >: facto reason I should be the one to give up my own wants.
: >It has helped me when I remind myself that my needs, while
: >very important, aren't always the most important.
: But sometimes, they are.
*sometimes*
: >: I don't put much stock in "intuition." Ask, definitely,
: >: but people don't always give you honest answers; when you
: >: get answers, though, I don't see what you can do but take
: >: people at their word, since it's not feasible, and strikes
: >: me as very disrespectful, to treat everyone as if they
: >: were not being honest.
: >This ignores the *fact* that sometimes people either don't
: >know what they want, or can't tell you if they do. This
: >ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
: >don't want to.
: So, what can be done about that?
Developing a sense of *empathy*, or paying attention to what
you currently possess, especially when it goes against what
you want.
Arnold Vance
In article <8503602...@dejanews.com>, <jlam...@calarts.edu> wrote:
>In article <58l54n$k...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,>[...] If you had a cut
>hadn't cut yourself, so it's not _my_ fault," but in saying that I would be
>missing the point, wouldn't I?
>About a year and a half ago, J, an ex of my then partner E, decided that zie
>wanted E back. While I was away on the east coast for a few weeks, J attempted
>to "steal" E from me. J wasn't exactly successful, but immediately upon
>returning from the east coast, E and I's relationship mysteriously crashed and
>burned: before I left, everything was great, but when I got back, kablooey!
>In some ways this is off-topic, since we are discussing what behaviour is
>"respectful" of the existing relationship, presumably for the benefit of those
>who have some intention of _being_ respectful, which J obviously did not.
>Still, I thought that this example might be edifying. (I sure learned a hell of
>a lot from it...)
>p.s. Any grammar nerd out there want to tell me the correct way to write "E and
Well, no. It's wonderful.
And the moral _is_ edifying, too.
-arn
'mathochist' Angela Long
Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>Suppose I have a partner who really wants me to be monogamous,
>>but since I know I wouldn't be happy monogamous, I have not
>>made any monogamy agreement; rather, I have told hir that any
>>relationship with me must be poly, and sie accepts that. Is
>>it unethical to get involved with me? Is it unethical to do
>>anything that makes one person in a relationship uncomfortable,
>>when that person has consented to accepting that kind of dis-
>>comfort because it was so important to hir partner?
>It's not necessarily unethical with a capital letter. However, in many
>such cases it would goes against my personal ethics (behavior standards
>I hold for myself but don't think are The One True Way and don't think
>everyone should hold them). The personal ethics that would come into
>play here are "avoiding competitive situations" and "seeking
>simplicity."
Those sound like preferences rather than ethics. Something
you would just rather not get messed up in, rather than some-
thing you consider morally wrong for you to do, if I read you
right.
>If someone actively consents to accept discomfort, it's more clearly OK
>than if someone does not consent but is involved in an uncomfortable
>situation anyway. For an example of the latter, I knew a couple that had
>a standoff about poly. She said "If you sleep with anyone else, we're
>through" and he said "I won't promise never to sleep with anyone else."
>I would not have slept with him under those conditions. But I've also
>known relationships where one person was not comfortable with poly but
>said "Go ahead anyway." I've behaved differently under those conditions.
Yes, those are different situations. I don't think we can
realistically expect every person in a situation to be totally
comfortable with every detail; there are virtually always go-
ing to be some things each person feels sie's compromising, or
downright sacrificing, on. So I don't think it's right to
avoid doing *anything* that makes somebody uncomfortable. But
it is wrong to do something that someone has clearly not con-
sented to. Between those two, there must be judgment calls.
>>>I usually don't start negotiations for changes in rules, either.
>>Then what do you do when the current rules aren't meeting your
>>needs?
>I say so (but that's different from starting a negotiation, which is
>asking that things be changed for my sake), and/or I try to get used to
>it, and/or I leave.
Hm.. yes I see the difference in wording between expressing
feelings and asking for something (I think we've had that
conversation before). But when you really do need something
to change, the expression of feelings is in itself, I think,
a beginning of a negotiation.
>>>It's not that I'm trying to claim relationships are more important than
>>>people, but it seems to me that if one is committed to personal growth,
>>>then one also needs to avoid laying down rigid rules of any variety
>>I don't agree. I don't think anybody needs to be willing to
>>"grow" in directions sie already knows are bad for hir.
>I agree, but that person isn't really committed completely to personal
>growth. If you think you "know" something and are rigid about it, you've
>cut off a lot of growth opportunities in that area. That's OK, of
>course. I'm not really big on being completely committed to personal
>growth anyway.
I don't think I said anyone should be committed completely to
personal growth. Some growth is good, some is not. What I
did say is that disruption is sometimes necessary for growth
... in fact, I can hardly think of a growth experience that
wouldn't involve disruption. That's not to say that *all*
growth is good, though.
>>What if C believed (maybe even rightly)
>>that hir relationship had started first, and that this implied
>>some sort of obligation from A to make their relationship more
>>important than yours, even though A had never intended or
>>agreed to that?
>C would be SOL unless C could get A to agree to zir point of view.
Exactly. I think that would be up to A to decide, not up
to another partner of A's to impose.
>>But I also did not consider it right to act
>>as if A had actually made an agreement which sie never had.
>>Some obligations are rightly "implied" by a situation without
>>explicit agreement, but in this case, A said sie had specific-
>>ally negotiated the opposite of what C was claiming was implied.
>Sounds like a mess; if I could manage it, I'd stay out of such a
>situation for personal safety/sanity reasons. If I were in it, I'd just
>have to muddle through based on intuition.
Yes, and on judgments which try to take into account the needs
of everyone involved.
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
>: >: but people don't always give you honest answers; when you
>: >: get answers, though, I don't see what you can do but take
>: >: people at their word, since it's not feasible, and strikes
>: >: me as very disrespectful, to treat everyone as if they
>: >: were not being honest.
>: >This ignores the *fact* that sometimes people either don't
>: >know what they want, or can't tell you if they do. This
>: >ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
>: >don't want to.
>: So, what can be done about that?
>Developing a sense of *empathy*, or paying attention to what
>you currently possess, especially when it goes against what
>you want.
"Empathy." Ah, mindreading, apparently. And what if I just
don't possess this magic sixth sense? What if it just plain
doesn't exist?
I recognize that a lot of what is called "empathy" is actually
a skillful reading of body language. I don't really think
that makes it very dependable, since all I can see body lang-
uage telling you is a *very* broad sense of ... not emotion,
but the surface manifestations that sometimes mean emotion ...
"tension" but not whether it's caused by excitement, fear,
discomfort; "smile" but not whether it's caused by happiness,
politeness, humor, acting. And I know I'm personally handi-
capped when it comes to body language; I can point to a few
contributing causes of this -- senses of sight and hearing
that don't seem at all up to par, the lack of ability to see
people from any distance before the age of 3 or 4, when most
children learn to read body language -- and partly, like any
other skill can be, it seems to be something I just plain
don't have any aptitude for.
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
>: progress, and still conclude that ending the disruption at
>: all costs is not the right course of action. Or that nothing
>: you could do would end the disruption, once it's begun.
>Or that maybe you should stop whatever it was you were doing
>until the disruption is sorted out?
>Why was that left out as a possibility, Angi?
Of course that's a possibility; I'm just saying it's not
always the most right choice.
When I discovered a disruption was going on in a relationship
I was involved with, I offered to stop seeing my partner for
a while to give them time to work things out. Not to cut off
our relationship forever, but just to take a vacation for a
few weeks or however long. This would have been hard but
would not have harmed my family the way ending things perma-
nently would have, so it seemed a very right thing to do.
And maybe it would have been wisest for them to accept the
offer, but at the time they (and their counselor, I was told)
agreed that that would cause more harm than good, so it did
not happen. I'm open to learning, here; was there something
I could have done better then? Should I have insisted on the
relationship time-out, even being unsure myself whether it
would help or not?
>: >This concept bothers me.
>: >All I can say is that anyone who told me they weren't at all
>: >concerned about the abstract entities that are my
>: >relationships.... well, as they say, "that kink is OK -- way
>: >the hell over there."
(snip) (relationships exist...)
>: >and, some of us value them more than anything else in this
>: >life.
>: The concept of valuing a *relationship* more than anything
>: else, specifically more than the people in it, bothers me.
>I'm left wondering where you get that I value the
>relationship more than the people themselves. I said it was
From the phrase "value them more than anything else in this
life."
>[examples of unhealthy relationships deleted]
>These, while real, do not justify dismissing or devaluing
>mostly healthy and happy relationships.
"Healthy" and "happy" are not black and white; neither is
"value." My value of somebody else's relationship is based
on two things: the value given to it by the people in it,
and the effects I see it having on the health and happiness
of those people. In most cases, the opinions of the people
whose relationship it is should be most important, but in
some cases, for example if I saw a person miserable with
abuse but still feeling dependent on hir relationship, the
effects I saw that relationship having would affect my
value judgment quite a bit.
Other examples of how this is not black-and-white: if my
child, as a teenager, got into a relationship I saw as bad
for hir, even if sie saw it as good, I would not value it
much, and may even intervene in some way. Adult friends
are not children, but to some extent friendship does give
us power to make value judgments about things affecting
our friends, and even to intervene if it's called for, so
if a friend was in a relationship I saw as bad for hir, I
would not feel obligated to overvalue that relationship,
and depending on how bad I judged it to be, I may inter-
vene, maybe just by talking frankly to my friend.
>: If your relationships are good for you and for everyone else
>: in them, and you value them for that reason, then I will re-
>: spect your relationships, not out of concern for the "rela-
>: tionship," but out of concern for *you* and your partners.
>That will do. I don't care what you call it as long as it
>happens.
>: And if *you* didn't value
>: your relationship much, I wouldn't see much point to my
>: valuing it *more* than you do.
>I don't know where you got this but, ok, I guess so.
It's an "if." If, for example, you had a relationship
you considered disposable, I would probably want to be
assured that the other person *knew* you felt that way,
but I would then also consider that relationship dis-
posable; it's yours, you get to define it. If you had
one you considered "valuable but not as valuable as X
and Y are" (X and Y being principles, people, needs,
whatever), I'd respect that, too, and treat your rela-
tionship as valuable, but X and Y as more valuable.
>: The value of your relation-
>: ships comes purely from the value they provide to the people
>: in them... just as the value of any other inanimate, un-
>: feeling thing comes from the value it provides to some*one*.
>I find the fact you compare a relationship with ownership of
>a decent lawn mower, which I can replace easly if it becomes
>broken, quite insightful.
The relatinship is not the people; the relationship
*itself* is abstract, inanimate. It feels nothing.
You, as a feeling creature, have value of your own.
Your relationship gets all of its value from you (and
your partner(s)). That's not *at all* to say that a
relationship compares in value to a lawn mower; it's
only to say that the source -- the mechanism -- of
the value of those things is the same, and is indirect
compared to the source of *your* value.
--
-- Angi
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: >If I am going through pain and angst in a longstanding
: >relatinship due to disrespectful behaviour on the part of a
: >newcomer, I guess I may be forgiven if I don't rush right
: >out and buy a money order for the relationship therapy in
: >the name of the newcomer.
: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying
: that happening to provide an opportunity for discovering
: a disagreement is "disrespectful behavior?"
Boy, if a new partner did me such a favor they would be gone
so damn fast they'd wonder what happened for a looooonnng
time.
: >So then, it's not the newcomer's fault -- for anything -- is
: >it?
: It's certainly not *always* the newcomer's fault. If
: there was already a disagreement or incompatibility of
: some sort, and the newcomer happens to provide the op-
: portunity for discussing and discovering that, then I
: don't see how the underlying problem can be the new-
: comer's "fault."
"happens to provide"? Sounds like they are doing some
sort of counseling favor. Maybe they should bill for it.
: Unless you think such problems are
: better left undiscovered.
Why do you keep doing this to support your arguments?
: I had been undervalued, neglected, and outright abused
: in my marriage for a long time when I met up with ano-
: ther partner who gave me the motivation, by offering
: to help financially, to get away from it. Was the
: breakup his "fault?" I don't think so.
May I offer, at no cost, a sense of perspective? Really, I
got plenty to spare.
'mathochist' Angela Long
>: >relatinship due to disrespectful behaviour on the part of a
>: >newcomer, I guess I may be forgiven if I don't rush right
>: >out and buy a money order for the relationship therapy in
>: >the name of the newcomer.
>: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying
>: that happening to provide an opportunity for discovering
>: a disagreement is "disrespectful behavior?"
>Boy, if a new partner did me such a favor they would be gone
>so damn fast they'd wonder what happened for a looooonnng
>time.
You really are cryptic sometimes, you know that?
What favor is that, happening to be the catalyst for your dis-
covering a disagreement in another relationship? How, really,
could the newcomer be expected to even *know* there was any
such disagreement lurking?
>: It's certainly not *always* the newcomer's fault. If
>: there was already a disagreement or incompatibility of
>: some sort, and the newcomer happens to provide the op-
>: portunity for discussing and discovering that, then I
>: don't see how the underlying problem can be the new-
>: comer's "fault."
>"happens to provide"? Sounds like they are doing some
>sort of counseling favor. Maybe they should bill for it.
Example. J and K have decided to do an adopt-a-family pro-
gram for Christmas. They pick out a family and go shopping
for gifts. While shopping, they discover that J had been
thinking of giving on the order of $50, while K had been
thinking more on the order of $500. J feels they can't af-
ford much more than $50, while K feels they'd be doing the
family an injustice by giving much less than $500; this
turns into an uncomfortable argument about some of their
values, previously thought to be in agreement. The adopted
family happened to prove the opportunity for J and K to
discover this disagreement. Was it the family's *fault*?
>: Unless you think such problems are
>: better left undiscovered.
>Why do you keep doing this to support your arguments?
Doing what?
Discoveries are sometimes painful. But in general, I
think problems are best not left hidden; the only thing
that comes from keeping problems undiscovered is that,
like undiscovered mold, they *grow*.
>: I had been undervalued, neglected, and outright abused
>: in my marriage for a long time when I met up with ano-
>: ther partner who gave me the motivation, by offering
>: to help financially, to get away from it. Was the
>: breakup his "fault?" I don't think so.
>May I offer, at no cost, a sense of perspective? Really, I
>got plenty to spare.
Perspect away.
Giving examples on extreme ends doesn't mean I think most
situations are that extreme. It's just easier to talk
about examples that are clear-cut, and an extreme example
in which the answer is definitely Y rather than X demon-
strates that in real life, the best answer may be some-
where between Y and X, and will certainly not *always*
be X.
(Remember, I'm trained to disprove assertions by giving
counterexamples. Usually, the example which most blatantly
violates the assertion is the best one, since it gives the
clearest sense of why the assertion is not true as it sits.)
--
-- Angi
JennieD-O'C
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> but i do think that one can disrupt a
>>> relationship that was not previously in trouble.
>>
>>I think it may be more accurate to say that one can disrupt a
>>relationship that didn't previously *know* it was in trouble. [...]
>
> that too. however, i still see a possibility to disrupt a rel-
> ationship that wasn't in trouble at all.
I can vouch for the fact that this is true. When I fell in love with
Iain, my relationship with Chris was most definitely *not* in trouble.
We had just gotten through a period of high stress, but positive stress
(we'd just gotten married and moved to Ann Arbor, where we were both
beginning careers we loved), and were getting along very well. Falling
in love with and getting involved with Iain, however, definitely *did*
disrupt that rather blissful state -- and for about two whole years, no
less. I actually think that it's the fact that our relationship had been
so good that helped us get through it at all.
--
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
<*> Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took both. <*>
Dave Settle
>
> [...valuing relationships ]
> >We can weigh, measure, catalogue people.
> >We can't do the same to relationships but, they still exist
> >life.
>
> The concept of valuing a *relationship* more than anything
> else, specifically more than the people in it, bothers me.
>
I'm not sure that's what I understood from jenner's post.
For me, the most important aspect of my life is the relationships
that I have with other people. The people that I love make my life
special and wonderful, and generate a lot of the excitement and
interest that I feel.
The whole web of links and relationships that I have with people
is possibly the most important thing in _my_ life too. Maybe that's
because loving people is fun ...
Relationships come and go, and I guess you have to be willing to
let the bad ones go (and the ones which stop being good for you).
But nevertheless, relating to people is what makes my world go
around.
> The value of your relation-
> ships comes purely from the value they provide to the people
> in them... just as the value of any other inanimate, un-
> feeling thing comes from the value it provides to some*one*.
> --
> -- Angi
>
Yes, I couldn't agree more.
Dave
--
"There is no greater loan than a sympathetic ear."
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>It's not necessarily unethical with a capital letter. However, in many
>>such cases it would goes against my personal ethics (behavior standards
>>I hold for myself but don't think are The One True Way and don't think
>>everyone should hold them). The personal ethics that would come into
>>play here are "avoiding competitive situations" and "seeking
>>simplicity."
>Those sound like preferences rather than ethics. Something
>you would just rather not get messed up in, rather than some-
>thing you consider morally wrong for you to do, if I read you
>right.
It's both a preference and an ethic for me.
>So I don't think it's right to
>avoid doing *anything* that makes somebody uncomfortable. But
>it is wrong to do something that someone has clearly not con-
>sented to. Between those two, there must be judgment calls.
Exactly.
>>I say so (but that's different from starting a negotiation, which is
>>asking that things be changed for my sake), and/or I try to get used to
>>it, and/or I leave.
>
>Hm.. yes I see the difference in wording between expressing
>feelings and asking for something (I think we've had that
>conversation before). But when you really do need something
>to change, the expression of feelings is in itself, I think,
>a beginning of a negotiation.
And unless one explicitly says the expression of feelings is *not* a
negotiation, the other person often takes them as such. I usually do
explicitly say otherwise if I am not ready for a full blown negotiation.
>I don't think I said anyone should be committed completely to
>personal growth.
No, you didn't. It just got abstract.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
I've been sentenced to life on Earth.
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I'm open to learning, here; was there something
>I could have done better then? Should I have insisted on the
>relationship time-out, even being unsure myself whether it
>would help or not?
Probably. If my relationship with someone is causing severe disruption
in another relationship of theirs, I usually back off, at least for a
while. It's easier to see that way whether the disruption is mostly
because of internal stuff in that relationship or whether I am
implicated by causing extra stress or whatever.
>if a friend was in a relationship I saw as bad for hir, I
>would not feel obligated to overvalue that relationship,
>and depending on how bad I judged it to be, I may inter-
>vene, maybe just by talking frankly to my friend.
Talking frankly is a perfectly reasonable way to intervene, provided
some sensitivity to your friend's feelings and perspective.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Cartoon Law II: Any body in motion will remain in motion until solid
matter intervenes.
Cappy Harrison
> In article <58l54n$k...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
> Just because there was already a problem in the relationship doesn't
mean that
> it's all right for you to come in and bring it to the surface. If you
had a cut
> and I came over and rubbed salt in it, I could say "this wouldn't hurt if you
> hadn't cut yourself, so it's not _my_ fault," but in saying that I would be
> missing the point, wouldn't I?
Ah. See, I was reading Angi not as saying that the newcomer explicitly
made an attempt to uncover a problem in the old relationship, but rather
that the newcomer's mere _existence_ in the original couple's lives
uncovered pre-existing problems.
In other words... let's say Dave and Jane are a couple who are open to new
relationships. Dave starts to date Leslie. Dave and Jane react to the
new relationship in a way that uncovers previously hidden problems in
their relationship. Hence, the existence of Leslie in their lives
"happens to provide the opportunity for discussing and discovering" a
pre-existing "disagreement of incompatibility of some sort."
-------------
Cappy Harrison * ca...@netaxs.com * http://www.netaxs.com/~cappy/
Stef Jones
Aileen71 <aile...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have a boyfriend of 4 months. we can't be sexual, however,
>for physical reasons. we'd agreed that i could continue my sex-only
>relationships which had already existed. but 2 months ago, i met another
>bi guy (it's an incestuous little circle here) with whom i clicked quite
>well -- he knows my boyfriend & I was honest w/both. well, we got
>involved, and for all that he knows i have strong feelings 4 my BF, he's
>not as patient as he tries to be in terms of taking the BF's place.
[...]
In what way does your new boyfriend want to take the place of your old
boyfriend? Does he want you to spend more time with him than with the
old boyfriend? Does he want you to stop calling the first guy a
boyfriend? Does he want you to stop having feelings for the first guy?
Or stop seeing him altogether?
>is it unreasonable of me to hold
>on to my first BF -- after all, we're not "involved" in a certain vital
>sense of the word, and so by nature he cannot be my "primary"
Sex is not necessarily what makes a relationship primary -- unless you
decide it is for *you*. If you and your first boyfriend have strong
feelings for each other, that's a legitimate basis for a relationship.
Even a "primary" relationship. But "primary" is difficult to define and
in this situation might be causing more trouble than it's worth. It's
also a legitimate basis for a "friendship."
>I totally encourage the 2nd
>guy to pursue male SO's, and I've given up my sex-only partners, so is it
>selfish of me to *not* promise that I could give up my BF, even as a
>secondary?
It's not selfish to want to keep your existing relationship going.
However, aspects of that relationship might end up being incompatible
with what your new boyfriend wants -- if, for example, he's decided he
wants a monogamous relationship with you. Then you have to decide
whether you're willing to make the changes he wants, whether compromises
are possible, whether you're willing to risk losing or changing your
relationship with him for the sake of maintaining the existing
relationship the way you want it.
Here are the guidelines I use for myself:
I wouldn't let someone tell me not to be in contact with another person
ever again.
I wouldn't let someone tell me what feelings I can have for others. I
can't turn my feelings on and off like that.
I would let someone tell me zir feelings and wants, e.g.: "I wish you
would spend more time with me" or "I want a mutually monogamous
relationship with you, and that means I don't want you going on dates
with other people" [or whatever].
Once someone has said those things, I have to decide whether I'm willing
to agree. Often talking about the situation helps determine exactly what
the person wants and sometimes it's possible to come to a solution that
works for everyone concerned. If not, then I have to decide what's most
important to me.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Cartoon Law VII: Certain bodies can pass through solid walls painted to
resemble tunnel entrances; others cannot. (...This is ultimately a
problem of art, not of science.)
Cappy Harrison
> angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
>
>
> : >If I am going through pain and angst in a longstanding
> : >relatinship due to disrespectful behaviour on the part of a
> : >newcomer, I guess I may be forgiven if I don't rush right
> : >out and buy a money order for the relationship therapy in
> : >the name of the newcomer.
>
> : I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying
> : that happening to provide an opportunity for discovering
> : a disagreement is "disrespectful behavior?"
>
> Boy, if a new partner did me such a favor they would be gone
> so damn fast they'd wonder what happened for a looooonnng
> time.
(I'm posting this twice, since the thread seems to have split, and since
Jenner & Jason seem to have understood Angi differently than I did.)
Mary Malmros
In article <8503602...@dejanews.com>, <jlam...@calarts.edu> wrote:
>In article <58l54n$k...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>it's all right for you to come in and bring it to the surface. If you had a cut
>and I came over and rubbed salt in it, I could say "this wouldn't hurt if you
>hadn't cut yourself, so it's not _my_ fault," but in saying that I would be
>missing the point, wouldn't I?
>
>surface," and I believe that there will always be a time for those problems to
>be brought to the surface and dealt with, but that time is not always "now".
>
>wanted E back. While I was away on the east coast for a few weeks, J attempted
>to "steal" E from me. J wasn't exactly successful, but immediately upon
>returning from the east coast, E and I's relationship mysteriously crashed and
>burned: before I left, everything was great, but when I got back, kablooey!
>E and J were together. (And a few months after that J got bored with his
>conquest and has seen gone on to do bigger and better people, presumably, but
>that's beside the point right now.) It's not simply that E dumped me for J;
>it's that J's advances brought to the surface problems that had been incipient
>all along, and this was a stress that our (relatively new) relationship just
>couldn't withstand.
...and the fact that all of this HAPPENED TO COME ABOUT when you were out of
town for a couple weeks probably didn't help any, did it? That adds a
wrinkle to the behavior that IMO wipes out some of the excuses that people
have been making for the disruptor: if a disruptor is ethically excusable on
the grounds that they're only bringing to light issues that were already
there, that excuse goes away when the disruption happens in a context where
one of the partners is temporarily unable to deal with the issues because of
an absence.
piranha
In article <58j1le$p...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>
>> if the other relationships are secondary, yes, i want to meet/
>> talk to those people. i've seen too many secondaries hurt by
>> being truly secondary when it came to consideration, and i am
>> not inclined to contribute to something like that.
>
>That's a good attitude. But it doesn't seem to me to apply to
>*all* secondary relationships. I'm thinking, for example, of
>a guy I had dated (and slept with) a few times when I met my
>last partner.
i wouldn't call that a "secondary". but since you had sex,
if you had planned to continue seeing this person, yes, i
would have wanted to meet him too.
>I think I would have been rather put off if my
>new/potential partner had insisted on meeting this guy.
it's good then that you and i aren't in a relationship. :-)
if you and he played raquetball together, i wouldn't care.
but since i give sex a special place (because it can have
much more far-reaching consequences than playing raquetball),
as soon as sex is part of a relationship, i feel uncomfor-
table not knowing the players. i am not likely to get at
all involved with somebody who has a lot of casual sex; that
isn't my scene, so dealing with the partners of somebody who
goes to play parties isn't going to come up, i think.
>I wish my last partner's other had been that considerate. I
>would like to think I would be, in a primary-like role, but
>I have not had the impression that most primaries considered
>secondaries important to include in major decisions.
some do, some don't. i will not get involved as a secondary
with somebody who has an agreement with zir primary that the
primary rules and the secondary's wishes always are relegated
to the back burner. i will not agree to an arrangement where
the primary determines when and how long zir partner can see
me and what we can and cannot do, without my input being con-
sidered (input by myself, directly, not translated thru our
mutual partner).
[i want to meet when things go beyond casual dating]
>But that line between "casual dating" and "more" is so hard
>to draw.
it's not hard to draw for me -- when you want to have sex with
that person, i want to meet. when you're growing fonder of zir
and think of including zir in your life as more than a casual
blip on the dating calendar, i'd like to meet. i talk a lot
with my partners (past and present) about zir friends and how
they feel about them; i know when somebody becomes more than
casual. i _want_ to know -- that's something i really like
about poly, that i can talk with my partners about casual at-
tractions and growing delight in other people.
that's what i really like about my currently mono relationship
-- my partner isn't opposed to hearing and talking about such
things. it is so much cooler than the old mono "don't you even
_look_ at zir!". it brings us closer.
>> [disruptions without previous flaw] especially NRE, i'd say, cause
>> some people really get consumed by that, and suddenly the entire
>> old relationship gets shunted aside, even tho there was nothing
>> wrong with it.
>
>I would say it was the shunting aside that caused the disrup-
>tion, not the NRE.
well, yes, but without the NRE it wouldn't have happened, so i
do not totally separate those. i've been in situations of NRE
where i made a lot of difference for the other relationships
of the "object of my disney chemicals" by slowing things down a
bit and virtually pushing zir out the door to show up at some-
body else's place. and prior to that i've been guilty of ta-
king all i could get without ever so much as considering another
person -- because nobody mattered to me at that time; i was con-
sumed with this other person, and zie with me, and the world
stood still for us. because i am aware that this can easily
happen, and can be hurtful for significant others in a person's
life, i now guard against it.
>I think the hinge person has much more responsibility; the
>main responsibility of the new person is to keep the hinge
>person reminded of hirs, it seems to me. It's that shunting
>aside that can cause real problems, and that's the action of
>the hinge person; the new person can try to prevent it, but
>may not be able to.
may not be able to? maybe not, but if i can't bring somebody
back to zir senses and remind zir of zir other responsibilities
(if zie doesn't think of them zirself, which i prefer), then i
will wonder whether i should be involved with this person. cuz
if zie does this to a senior love, how will it be when i become
just another senior one, while zie gallivants off with the new
lover?
yes, the hinge person has more reponsibility; after all the hinge
person has made the agreements with the senior love. but that
does not relieve me of my ethical responsibilities to not blithe-
ly hurt third persons. even if i didn't have that as a part of
my personal code of ethics, it would be a dumb thing to do, and
it would likely come back to haunt me. this is a typically mono
thing to do when one competes for a person; "all is fair in love
and war"; if one wins the competition that person is out of the
picture anyway, so why bother being considerate? but for a poly
person that senior love will still _be_ in the picture, and will
become squeakier if not treated well. it makes sense to not be-
have as if zie doesn't exist.
-piranha
piranha
well, if "I" is an initial for "ingrid", then that would be
correct. my grammar says that in cases of joint ownership,
the possessive gets used for the last name only, so it'd be
"elizabeth and isolde's relationship".
but since the 'I' up there is a pronoun for you, the speaker,
and your name isn't ingrid, that won't fly.
my grammar doesn't say how to do this when using pronouns
instead. by feel i would say "E and my relationship", but
when i turn that around, it sounds weird to say "I and E's
relationship", and it would sound better to say "my and E's
relationship". urmph. maybe i should head over to alt.
usage.english
so, my advice: don't turn it around.
-piranha
piranha
[reformatted.]
In article <8503602...@dejanews.com>, <jlam...@calarts.edu> wrote:
>
>Just because there was already a problem in the relationship doesn't mean
>that it's all right for you to come in and bring it to the surface. If
>you had a cut and I came over and rubbed salt in it, I could say "this
>wouldn't hurt if you hadn't cut yourself, so it's not _my_ fault," but
>in saying that I would be missing the point, wouldn't I?
i think you're missing the point that angi was hovering around,
which was that i as the third person coming into an existing
relationship might not know at all that you cut yourself, and
i am not rubbing any salt in your wounds purposefully -- i just
spilled some salt because the container broke when i picked it
up.
as such i disagree with the wording angi used -- "providing an
opportunity" sounds like i actually had a leading role in bring-
ing this about. which isn't true. my presence brought it out,
but i didn't intend it to be so. to me "providing" implies a
goal on my part, and effort towards reaching that goal. that's
not appropriate in this case, i think.
>I think any relationship is going to have problems that are "beneath
>the surface," and I believe that there will always be a time for those
>problems to be brought to the surface and dealt with, but that time is
>not always "now".
i agree. but sometimes there is no choice about it; sometimes
it happens like a volcanic eruption, and there it is, and we
might not want to waste our time arguing who brought it about,
but somebody's gotta deal with the lava flow.
[story of J who "stole" jason's partner E, zapped]
>[E.] was right: the underlying problems would have come to the surface
>eventually -- on the other hand, if it hadn't been for J, perhaps by
>the time they did come to the surface, E and I would have grown closer,
>the relationship grown stronger, and perhaps these problems might have
>been dealt with and overcome, rather than having them tear the relation-
>ship apart, which is what happened. I still can't help thinking that E
>and I could have had a good thing, if it hadn't been for J.
but this is entirely wishful thinking (i think you know that) --
we cannot know what happened. time, place, circumstances, per-
sonalities all come together to affect the story, and if you make
a change to any of them, you get a different story.
i don't always follow my own advice either, tho -- but i tend
to put a lot more responsibility on the plate of my partner.
no matter what J did, my partner should have had the character
to not let something bad happen to our relationship. J is not
to blame for my partner's less than optimal choices.
as a result, i engage less in wishful thinking, but probably too
much in wondering why i picked such losers. :-)
>In some ways this is off-topic, since we are discussing what behaviour is
>"respectful" of the existing relationship, presumably for the benefit of
>those who have some intention of _being_ respectful, which J obviously
>did not.
did J obviously not have that intention? are we talking about
a poly relationship, or a mono one? if the former, then trying
to pick up an old relationship doesn't sound per se disrespect-
ful to me, just like starting a new one isn't.
if mono, and you were not married, there seems to be an attitude
that it's entirely fair to present yourself as competition. i
would be hard-pressed to call that "respectful", but i also won-
der just how a mono person would go about competing in a manner
that would be seen as respectful by the current partner. or is
the only way a mono person can show respect to stay away? that
is pretty much what i do, but i do wonder where to draw the line
-- if they're casually dating, not there, i guess. if they live
together, ok, that's clear to me. but what if they don't? how
do you tell?
-piranha
'mathochist' Angela Long
Cappy Harrison <ca...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>jlam...@calarts.edu wrote:
>> angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
>> > It's certainly not *always* the newcomer's fault. If
>> > there was already a disagreement or incompatibility of
>> > some sort, and the newcomer happens to provide the op-
>> > portunity for discussing and discovering that, then I
>> > don't see how the underlying problem can be the new-
>> > comer's "fault." Unless you think such problems are
>> > better left undiscovered. But then, it would be wrong
>> > to ever have a serious conversation with anyone, since
>> > from your words they may be prompted to discover some
>> > conflict they hadn't put their finger on before.
>> Just because there was already a problem in the relationship doesn't
>mean that
>> it's all right for you to come in and bring it to the surface. If you
>had a cut
>> and I came over and rubbed salt in it, I could say "this wouldn't hurt if you
>> hadn't cut yourself, so it's not _my_ fault," but in saying that I would be
>> missing the point, wouldn't I?
>Ah. See, I was reading Angi not as saying that the newcomer explicitly
>made an attempt to uncover a problem in the old relationship, but rather
>that the newcomer's mere _existence_ in the original couple's lives
>uncovered pre-existing problems.
*Exactly*, and thank you. Rather than rubbing salt into a cut
the newcomer could see, I'm talking about something more like
the newcomer giving a regular ol' handshake, which unexpectedly
causes pain, which leads the recipient to discover a previously
unknown medical problem with hir hand.
Or, something I've seen happen a few times: the newcomer talks
about something -- hir own philosophy, experience, something in
hir own life -- and this leads hir conversation partner to
thought, and to a discussion with a partner, which uncovers some
old -- or maybe even new, if the thought has brought about some
change in the person's attitude -- conflict. All the newcomer
did here was present a new idea, probably without even any in-
tent of "converting" anyone. The most obvious example of this
is a new friend who talks about poly philosophy to a monogamous
person, and the monogamous person decides poly (maybe not even
with the person who brought hir the idea) is what sie wants,
and of course that brings about a conflict with hir partner.
Something similar is a disruption caused by not so much a con-
flict, as just some change that brings about jealousy or other
negative feelings, when the change may simply have been brought
about by exposure to someone (or something) new. Real example:
I had a partner ("friend and playpartner" type, if that matters)
a few years ago who, after seeing me with my kids and hearing me
talk about them, decided he wanted kids; previously he hadn't
been so sure. His wife had negative feelings about the change,
because *she* had never been able to convince him to want kids.
I don't think she really blamed me for her negative feelings,
but I was tied up in them. I don't think I was "to blame" for
anything there.
--
-- Angi
Arnold Vance
In article <58pjc2$f...@excalibur.net5c.io.org>,
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <58j1le$p...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
> may not be able to? maybe not, but if i can't bring somebody
> back to zir senses and remind zir of zir other responsibilities
> (if zie doesn't think of them zirself, which i prefer), then i
> will wonder whether i should be involved with this person. cuz
> if zie does this to a senior love, how will it be when i become
> just another senior one, while zie gallivants off with the new
> lover?
This is why I don't like the word responsibility. It smacks of the mono
way of having relationships. I think it _is_ OK for a partner of mine to
be out of his or her senses--in the sense that he or she is living
out something important to him or her. The word responsibility here is
being used to hide behind the idea, "My share--deliver!"
I am not so self-important as to think I have a right to a partner's
affections. I don't care how long I've been with them, it'll never be
the case. Also, I _like_ the idea that as a senior love, my loves are
still "young" enough to go off and galavant.
Somehow, this reminds me of a lover who wanted to have sex dozens of
times a day. This was OK for a while but when I suggested a few hours
break it broke us up. Others do nearly the same thing with attention.
They'll say you're free to do other things while at the same time trying
to take up all your psychic space.
Don't make the identification mistake. It's your position I'm quarreling
with--not you.
-arn
Andrea Cookson
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, jenner wrote:
> This
> ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
> don't want to.
This denies free will. I hope you understand that you are
describing a pathological liar.
> This ignores the fact that we are -- most of us -- awfully,
> painfully, sometimes tragically human.
Yes, mental illness is all too human.
Andrea Cookson
acoo...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu
/0; ,1.....c5i756666666666nb nb
g765tg 6666666666666666666666t 9018u ,....
-Nate Cookson
'mathochist' Angela Long
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
> as such i disagree with the wording angi used -- "providing an
> opportunity" sounds like i actually had a leading role in bring-
> ing this about. which isn't true. my presence brought it out,
> but i didn't intend it to be so. to me "providing" implies a
> goal on my part, and effort towards reaching that goal. that's
> not appropriate in this case, i think.
Hm, the word doesn't have that connotation to me, but I see how
it could have. I would have hoped "happen to provide..." would
be an unambiguous wording. "Happen to" implies to me something
that, well, just happens to happen, no ill intent involved.
> i don't always follow my own advice either, tho -- but i tend
> to put a lot more responsibility on the plate of my partner.
> no matter what J did, my partner should have had the character
> to not let something bad happen to our relationship. J is not
> to blame for my partner's less than optimal choices.
Good attitude. I do this, too; there have been times when a
partner's other wanted my partner to do something which wronged
me, and I blamed my partner much more than the other, because
even if the other was being irrational or inconsiderate, my
partner should have had the sense to say, "no, I won't do that
to her."
I also wish my last partner's other had that attitude. I will
certainly cop to being an accomplice in some ways she got hurt
-- an unintentional accomplice most times, but an accomplice
nonetheless -- but she has gone so far as to call him her "in-
nocent husband" and put *all* the blame on me, which makes me
defensive. I'll accept my share of blame, but not his, too.
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> if the other relationships are secondary, yes, i want to meet/
>>> talk to those people. i've seen too many secondaries hurt by
>>> being truly secondary when it came to consideration, and i am
>>That's a good attitude. But it doesn't seem to me to apply to
>>*all* secondary relationships. I'm thinking, for example, of
>>a guy I had dated (and slept with) a few times when I met my
>>last partner.
> i wouldn't call that a "secondary".
Neither would I, except in the broadest sense of "secondary" as
meaning "any non-primary romantic and/or sexual relationship."
> but since you had sex,
> if you had planned to continue seeing this person, yes, i
> would have wanted to meet him too.
That's what makes me uncomfortable: the idea that the mere fact
of sex makes somebody a person with whom important decisions
should be shared. Sex is important, but other things are much
more defining, for me -- such as time spent, and whether or not
the person is involved with my kids. The "casual dating/fuck-
buddy" relationship has worked for me in the past with people I
saw only every month or two, and who were not at all involved
with my kids (the guy I mentioned above had never met them) (if
somebody hasn't even met my kids, the most important people in
my life, then why would they be meeting my other partners?).
If I was seeing somebody every week or two, and sie interacted
with my kids, that would be more defining than sex; I couldn't
have that much involvement with a person and just be fuckbuddies.
> table not knowing the players. i am not likely to get at
> all involved with somebody who has a lot of casual sex; that
Hm, what if it's somebody who just has a little casual sex?
>>I wish my last partner's other had been that considerate. I
>>would like to think I would be, in a primary-like role, but
>>I have not had the impression that most primaries considered
>>secondaries important to include in major decisions.
> some do, some don't. i will not get involved as a secondary
> with somebody who has an agreement with zir primary that the
> primary rules and the secondary's wishes always are relegated
> to the back burner. (. . .)
Me, neither. But I have been involved with somebody where I
was told (by both of them) at first that there was no such
agreement, and then later the primary tried to retroactively
enforce one.
>[i want to meet when things go beyond casual dating]
>>But that line between "casual dating" and "more" is so hard
>>to draw.
> it's not hard to draw for me -- when you want to have sex with
> that person, i want to meet. (. . .)
What if sex, in and of itself, doesn't make it "more" than
"casual" to your partner?
>>> [disruptions without previous flaw] especially NRE, i'd say, cause
>>> some people really get consumed by that, and suddenly the entire
>>> old relationship gets shunted aside, even tho there was nothing
>>> wrong with it.
>>I would say it was the shunting aside that caused the disrup-
>>tion, not the NRE.
> well, yes, but without the NRE it wouldn't have happened, so i
> do not totally separate those. i've been in situations of NRE
> where i made a lot of difference for the other relationships
> of the "object of my disney chemicals" by slowing things down a
> bit and virtually pushing zir out the door to show up at some-
> body else's place. (. . .)
I've done that, too, but at the same time, I can't do much
about what the person *does* and doesn't do when sie gets to
the other place.
> yes, the hinge person has more reponsibility; after all the hinge
> person has made the agreements with the senior love. but that
> does not relieve me of my ethical responsibilities to not blithe-
> ly hurt third persons. even if i didn't have that as a part of
> my personal code of ethics, it would be a dumb thing to do, and
> it would likely come back to haunt me. (. . .)
Very true. The problem I have had, though, is with not knowing
*how* to prevent that kind of hurt from happening. IME, commu-
nication has not prevented it.
--
-- Angi
Aileen71
>In what way does your new boyfriend want to take the >place of your old
boyfriend? Does he want you to spend more time with him >than with the
old boyfriend? Does he want you to stop calling the first >guy a
boyfriend? Does he want you to stop having feelings for >the first guy?
Or stop seeing him altogether?
The second guy, I think, is not as flexible as he tries to be in terms of
a girlfriend. He wants to know that "eventually" (and our definition of
how long eventually is) yes, I won't call the first guy a boyfriend or
spend as much time with him. He knows I would never put up with "don't see
him at all" and that I don't intend to give up a friendship at the very
least.
>Sex is not necessarily what makes a relationship primary >-- unless you
.decide it is for *you*. If you and your first boyfriend have >strong
>feelings for each other, that's a legitimate basis for a >relationship.
>Even a "primary" relationship. But "primary" is difficult >to define and
>in this situation might be causing more trouble than it's >worth. It's
>also a legitimate basis for a "friendship."
Yeah, true. I have strong feelings for the first guy, but I guess what
makes these feelings different than from any strong affetion for a friend
is that it has the added bonus of physical attraction -- but that's the
aspect we can't go anywhere with. So almost by default, for me, it has to
go back to friendship.
It's not selfish to want to keep your existing relationship going.
<<snip>>
> you have to decide
>whether you're willing to make the changes he wants, >whether compromises
>are possible, whether you're willing to risk losing or >changing your
>relationship with him for the sake of maintaining the >existing
>relationship the way you want it.
Yeah, that's what it comes down to. I have to suss out just what this
second guy means to me independent of the first guy. I know that there's
already a problem with our differing levels of sensitivity -- maybe it's
just that he's being very open with his feelings and that makes me
uncomfortable, because I like a level of reserve; I envy him for being far
more certain about things than I.
<<guidelines snipped>>
Good guidelines.
--
>Stef **
--acey
piranha
In article <58q8jl$a...@panix2.panix.com>, Arnold Vance <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>This is why I don't like the word responsibility. It smacks of the mono
>way of having relationships.
really? i think it smacks of the way of relationships that
squicks free spirits, whether true ones or wanna-bes. hedo-
nists don't like it much either, i think. i don't see it as
a mono thing at all, i know plenty of poly people (most of
them, in fact) who feel responsibility for their behaviour
towards their partners.
there are of course those who don't. again, they exist both
in mono and in poly relationships.
>I think it _is_ OK for a partner of mine to
>be out of his or her senses--in the sense that he or she is living
>out something important to him or her. The word responsibility here is
>being used to hide behind the idea, "My share--deliver!"
is it? what if the person neglected is a child? is it ok to
be out of one's senses and neglect a child? probably even you
don't think so. is it then ok to make sure the child is fed
and dry, but otherwise to hell with that responsibility, that
share of love? and if it's not ok to withdraw one's love from
a child, why then is it ok to withdraw it from an adult?
i've had to fight the tendency in myself to just look at my own
wishes all my life. i _am_ a free spirit, i'd prefer a life
where i can pick up my duffle bag tomorrow and head off to NZ
on a whim. i've done such things a fair amount; i rarely stay
put anywhere for long.
that's fine as long as i stay away from involvements with peo-
ple. because there is a side in me that does not want to cause
pain to people i love. can i stay away from involvements? it
appears not. while people bind me terribly at times, they also
give me something that i can't get elsewhere.
and so i undertake responsibilities. sometimes it's hard to do
so. but i am not a hedonist, and i don't want to be an egocen-
tric bastard who takes what zie can and leaves whenever it's
convenient. if i wasn't aware that other people have feelings,
that's probably what i'd do. but i am not blind and deaf to
the reality of others. damn.
>I am not so self-important as to think I have a right to a partner's
>affections. I don't care how long I've been with them, it'll never be
>the case. Also, I _like_ the idea that as a senior love, my loves are
>still "young" enough to go off and galavant.
good for you. then that's how you run your life. it ought to
be paradaisical. and never a need, or a wish for somebody to
be there for you while zie is gallivanting? uh huh.
>Somehow, this reminds me of a lover who wanted to have sex dozens of
>times a day. This was OK for a while but when I suggested a few hours
>break it broke us up. Others do nearly the same thing with attention.
>They'll say you're free to do other things while at the same time trying
>to take up all your psychic space.
i seem to perceive a lot of space between "all" and "other".
you don't?
>Don't make the identification mistake. It's your position I'm quarreling
>with--not you.
which mistake are you making now, the projection mistake, or the
patronization mistake, or?
-piranha
Arnold Vance
In article <Pine.A32.3.94.961212...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>,
Andrea Cookson <acoo...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, jenner wrote:
>
>> This
>> ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
>> don't want to.
>
>This denies free will. I hope you understand that you are
>describing a pathological liar.
>
>> This ignores the fact that we are -- most of us -- awfully,
>> painfully, sometimes tragically human.
>
>Yes, mental illness is all too human.
So was Nietzsche. He was also a pathological truthteller.
-arn
Mary Malmros
In article <Pine.A32.3.94.961212...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>,
Andrea Cookson <acoo...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, jenner wrote:
>
>> This
>> ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
>> don't want to.
>
>This denies free will. I hope you understand that you are
>describing a pathological liar.
I don't understand how the issue of free will is connected with pathological
lying (which, from what I understand, is an inability to distinguish between
truth and untruth). I think of a pathological liar as someone who is
missing an essential control. To use an analogy, last year I had a bad case
of labyrinthitis, a condition that causes severe dizziness/vertigo and that
caused me to be unable to walk about without falling at times. It wasn't
some lack of free will (which has always struck me as a largely theological
concept) that prevented me from standing on my feet, it was a temporary lack
of motor control.
In either case, I don't think that what jenner is describing is necessarily
a pathological liar. Sometimes people choose to do things that are not what
they _want_ to do, not by any stretch of the imagination.
>> This ignores the fact that we are -- most of us -- awfully,
>> painfully, sometimes tragically human.
>
>Yes, mental illness is all too human.
I don't know that it's all that helpful to characterize anyone who ever lies
as mentally ill.
Michael Sullivan
In article <58qeht$k...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> it's not hard to draw for me -- when you want to have sex with
>> that person, i want to meet. (. . .)
>What if sex, in and of itself, doesn't make it "more" than
>"casual" to your partner?
Well -- I look at it this way: if someone is a friend of my lover who
doesn't want me to meet them, I wonder why, and none of the possible
reasons I can come up with would bode well for our relationship.
If my lover is regularly having sex with someone they don't consider a
friend, I question their judgement.
You may think that having sex on a regular basis with people who aren't
even friends (or likely to become friends) is just dandy, and if you can
work things out to everyone's satisfaction, more power yadda, your kink is
OK, <insert further cliches here> -- but forgive me if that would be
likely to preclude a relationship between us.
I expect that p. feels similarly.
I understand your desire, sort of. What I have trouble fathoming is that
you don't seem to accept p's desire to meet her lover's others as
reasonable.
If your privacy is more important than letting your lovers know about
certain areas of your life, then you've made a choice -- a choice that may
cause some people to wonder whether you can be trusted.
I've known a lot of people whose dealings with their "casual" sex partners
are subtly but deeply unethical (my ethics represented here, I'm quite
aware they are not universal). In the midst of NRE inspired passion, it's
easy to blind oneself to a lover's actual philosophy. Having the
opportunity to observe them in other relationships provides me with a
viewpoint of somewhat greater objectivity -- valuable information that
enables me to trust them more, or sometimes less.
>> yes, the hinge person has more reponsibility; after all the hinge
>> person has made the agreements with the senior love. but that
>> does not relieve me of my ethical responsibilities to not blithe-
>> ly hurt third persons. even if i didn't have that as a part of
>> my personal code of ethics, it would be a dumb thing to do, and
>> it would likely come back to haunt me. (. . .)
>Very true. The problem I have had, though, is with not knowing
>*how* to prevent that kind of hurt from happening. IME, commu-
>nication has not prevented it.
To be blunt -- from what you've posted, your previous big relationship
seems to have had about as little communication as I can possibly imagine
between the ends of the V. If that were my paradigm, yeah -- I don't
think I'd know how to prevent much in the way of hurt either.
That's one reason I choose a paradigm where I must have a cordial (and
preferably close) relationship with my lovers' other partners. The more
important my relationship and the "other" relationship are, the closer I
need to be to be comfortable. If either is quite casual, I'd probably be
happy enough to meet the person and have a positive opinion. But, yes --
I'd still want to meet as soon as it can be arranged easily. For one
thing -- to verify that *that* person thinks its as casual as my lover
does or vice versa.
If a person has a big problem with that desire for some reason, then it's
possible (depending on specific circumstances) that we just can't be
lovers, the same way we might not be for any number of other reasons.
Michael
'mathochist' Angela Long
Mary Malmros <mal...@shore.net> wrote:
>Andrea Cookson <acoo...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, jenner wrote:
>>> This ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
>>> don't want to.
>>This denies free will. I hope you understand that you are
>>describing a pathological liar.
>I don't understand how the issue of free will is connected with pathological
>lying (which, from what I understand, is an inability to distinguish between
>truth and untruth). I think of a pathological liar as someone who is
>missing an essential control.
I thought pathological lying was the compulsion to lie, in spite
of knowing you're lying. And while some compulsions are very
strong, there *is* still free will, the ability to overcome the
compulsion and, in this case, tell the truth, no matter how
strong the urge to lie.
>>Yes, mental illness is all too human.
>I don't know that it's all that helpful to characterize anyone who ever lies
>as mentally ill.
Me, neither. But I also don't think it's helpful to hold anyone
but the liar responsible for the lie.
I don't think "lying" was quite what jenner meant to say, though.
More like "not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth" -- for example, telling you your dress is "interes-
ting" rather than what I *really* think of it -- if I understood
him right. But I still think only the person who knows the truth,
and knowingly tells less than the truth, can be responsible for
it. If I go out in a dress you told me you liked, and later you
get irritated at me because you're embarassed to be seen with me
in such an ugly dress, you can't really blame *me* for thinking
you liked the dress, when that was what you *told* me.
--
-- Angi
Stef Jones
Cappy Harrison <ca...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Ah. See, I was reading Angi not as saying that the newcomer explicitly
>made an attempt to uncover a problem in the old relationship, but rather
>that the newcomer's mere _existence_ in the original couple's lives
>uncovered pre-existing problems.
>
>In other words... let's say Dave and Jane are a couple who are open to new
>relationships. Dave starts to date Leslie. Dave and Jane react to the
>new relationship in a way that uncovers previously hidden problems in
>their relationship. Hence, the existence of Leslie in their lives
>"happens to provide the opportunity for discussing and discovering" a
>pre-existing "disagreement of incompatibility of some sort."
And in that situation, Leslie would be smart to back off for a while
until Dave and Jane had settled some of their problems. That's what *I*
thought we were talking about. :-)
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Thou canst do anything thou wilt in Aleister's restaurant.
Stef Jones
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <58q8jl$a...@panix2.panix.com>, Arnold Vance <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I am not so self-important as to think I have a right to a partner's
>>affections. I don't care how long I've been with them, it'll never be
>>the case. Also, I _like_ the idea that as a senior love, my loves are
>>still "young" enough to go off and galavant.
> good for you. then that's how you run your life. it ought to
> be paradaisical. and never a need, or a wish for somebody to
> be there for you while zie is gallivanting? uh huh.
Well heck, he can always just model his way out of it. (Or turn around
and play manipulative word games with someone else. The dog maybe.)
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
The New Age is just like the old age--only newer.
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: >angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: >: >: I don't put much stock in "intuition." Ask, definitely,
: >: >: but people don't always give you honest answers; when you
: >: >: get answers, though, I don't see what you can do but take
: >: >: people at their word, since it's not feasible, and strikes
: >: >: me as very disrespectful, to treat everyone as if they
: >: >: were not being honest.
: >: >This ignores the *fact* that sometimes people either don't
: >: >know what they want, or can't tell you if they do. This
: >: >ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
: >: >don't want to.
: >: So, what can be done about that?
: >Developing a sense of *empathy*, or paying attention to what
: >you currently possess, especially when it goes against what
: >you want.
: "Empathy." Ah, mindreading, apparently.
No. They are different things. By defining something I
have told you is a good thing to have as something you can
never possess, you set yourself up for failure. A self
fulfilling prophecy in action.
You say you cannot do a thing, therfore you cannot.
You lose.
: And what if I just
: don't possess this magic sixth sense? What if it just plain
: doesn't exist?
Oh, the use of empathy, and the fine tuning of it, is a
skill not impossible to obtain. It sometimes takes work,
though. Sometimes, we have to be willing to hear what we
don't want to hear, to give of ourselves in a way we had not
expected, to place our immediate needs secondary to the
situation. It is one of the first steps in the ability to
give selflessly.
This is different than martyrdom, of course.
: I recognize that a lot of what is called "empathy" is actually
: a skillful reading of body language.
I've practiced it with closed eyes. Your definition places
limits on what you can achieve.
: I can point to a few
: contributing causes of this -- senses of sight and hearing
: that don't seem at all up to par, the lack of ability to see
: people from any distance before the age of 3 or 4, when most
: children learn to read body language -- and partly, like any
: other skill can be, it seems to be something I just plain
: don't have any aptitude for.
As long as you have that strong of an argument, one of the
things that can possibly help you will be firmly beyond your
grasp.
-- jenner
Web page peek: http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29
jenner
Andrea Cookson <acoo...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
: On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, jenner wrote:
: > This
: > ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
: > don't want to.
: This denies free will. I hope you understand that you are
: describing a pathological liar.
So, someone who lies to us to protect us, lies out of fear
for themselves, lies to please us, lies to protect another,
is a pathological liar?
Damn, we have an epidemic!
: > This ignores the fact that we are -- most of us -- awfully,
: > painfully, sometimes tragically human.
: Yes, mental illness is all too human.
Indeed.
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: >angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: >: >If I am going through pain and angst in a longstanding
: >: >relatinship due to disrespectful behaviour on the part of a
: >: >newcomer, I guess I may be forgiven if I don't rush right
: >: >out and buy a money order for the relationship therapy in
: >: >the name of the newcomer.
: >: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying
: >: that happening to provide an opportunity for discovering
: >: a disagreement is "disrespectful behavior?"
: >Boy, if a new partner did me such a favor they would be gone
: >so damn fast they'd wonder what happened for a looooonnng
: >time.
: You really are cryptic sometimes, you know that?
To some, I'm downright frustrating. I can get to
infuriating at times too.
: What favor is that, happening to be the catalyst for your dis-
: covering a disagreement in another relationship? How, really,
: could the newcomer be expected to even *know* there was any
: such disagreement lurking?
But of course then. It's not their fault when, once finding
out they are a catalyst for a painful disturbance, they
don't back off a bit and let things get fixed?
"I didn't know that negotiating X would cause great upset in
your long time partner but, since I didn't know about it,
it's not my fault. So, how about X anyway? Huh?"
: >May I offer, at no cost, a sense of perspective? Really, I
: >got plenty to spare.
: Perspect away.
: Giving examples on extreme ends doesn't mean I think most
: situations are that extreme.
Then where are the middle examples, Angi?
: It's just easier to talk
: about examples that are clear-cut, and an extreme example
: in which the answer is definitely Y rather than X demon-
: strates that in real life, the best answer may be some-
: where between Y and X, and will certainly not *always*
: be X.
Easier? Ok. Easier.
: (Remember, I'm trained to disprove assertions by giving
: counterexamples. Usually, the example which most blatantly
: violates the assertion is the best one, since it gives the
: clearest sense of why the assertion is not true as it sits.)\
And sometimes, Angi, the feelings, emotions, hearts of
people aren't things to be solved by sheer weight of
(sometimes hyperbolic) argument.
jenner
ca...@netaxs.com (Cappy Harrison) wrote:
: (I'm posting this twice, since the thread seems to have split, and since
: Jenner & Jason seem to have understood Angi differently than I did.)
: Ah. See, I was reading Angi not as saying that the newcomer explicitly
: made an attempt to uncover a problem in the old relationship, but rather
: that the newcomer's mere _existence_ in the original couple's lives
: uncovered pre-existing problems.
: In other words... let's say Dave and Jane are a couple who are open to new
: relationships. Dave starts to date Leslie. Dave and Jane react to the
: new relationship in a way that uncovers previously hidden problems in
: their relationship. Hence, the existence of Leslie in their lives
: "happens to provide the opportunity for discussing and discovering" a
: pre-existing "disagreement of incompatibility of some sort."
Been there, done that, thanks for the example Cappy.
Now, in keeping with the subect line, what is the newcomer
to do at this point?
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: >angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: >: You can be very concerned when you discover a disruption-in-
: >: progress, and still conclude that ending the disruption at
: >: all costs is not the right course of action. Or that nothing
: >: you could do would end the disruption, once it's begun.
: >Or that maybe you should stop whatever it was you were doing
: >until the disruption is sorted out?
: >Why was that left out as a possibility, Angi?
: Of course that's a possibility; I'm just saying it's not
: always the most right choice.
Not only the most right choice but not a choice worth
mentioning.
: >: The concept of valuing a *relationship* more than anything
: >: else, specifically more than the people in it, bothers me.
: >I'm left wondering where you get that I value the
: >relationship more than the people themselves. I said it was
: From the phrase "value them more than anything else in this
: life."
And in earlier posts I have said that the people, and the
relationships they are a part of are intertwined,
interwoven. No relationship without a person...an important
person to form and maintain a relationship.
: >I find the fact you compare a relationship with ownership of
: >a decent lawn mower, which I can replace easly if it becomes
: >broken, quite insightful.
: The relatinship is not the people; the relationship
: *itself* is abstract, inanimate. It feels nothing.
Thank you for making that very clear.
: You, as a feeling creature, have value of your own.
: Your relationship gets all of its value from you (and
: your partner(s)).
And if that value is not respected by someone who is new,
they are history. Simple as that.
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: *Exactly*, and thank you. Rather than rubbing salt into a cut
: the newcomer could see, I'm talking about something more like
: the newcomer giving a regular ol' handshake, which unexpectedly
: causes pain, which leads the recipient to discover a previously
: unknown medical problem with hir hand.
Now, are you willing to let go?
'mathochist' Angela Long
Michael Sullivan <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> it's not hard to draw for me -- when you want to have sex with
>>What if sex, in and of itself, doesn't make it "more" than
>>"casual" to your partner?
>Well -- I look at it this way: if someone is a friend of my lover who
>doesn't want me to meet them, I wonder why, and none of the possible
>reasons I can come up with would bode well for our relationship.
There's a big difference between "not wanting you to meet them"
and "not wanting you to see meeting them as an all-important pre-
requisite for the relationship."
>If my lover is regularly having sex with someone they don't consider a
>friend, I question their judgement.
Friends come in different flavors. I have had sexual relation-
ships in the past with people I considered more casual, rather
than more close, friends.
>I understand your desire, sort of. What I have trouble fathoming is that
>you don't seem to accept p's desire to meet her lover's others as
>reasonable.
When did I say I didn't accept it? I'm just not in total agree-
ment with the idea of using sex to draw the line on who to feel
it's important to meet.
>If your privacy is more important than letting your lovers know about
>certain areas of your life, then you've made a choice -- a choice that may
>cause some people to wonder whether you can be trusted.
I don't think I've ever hidden any area of my life from a lover.
But I haven't felt it necessary to introduce lovers to everyone
I know, either.
>>Very true. The problem I have had, though, is with not knowing
>>*how* to prevent that kind of hurt from happening. IME, commu-
>>nication has not prevented it.
>To be blunt -- from what you've posted, your previous big relationship
>seems to have had about as little communication as I can possibly imagine
>between the ends of the V. If that were my paradigm, yeah -- I don't
>think I'd know how to prevent much in the way of hurt either.
There was little communication *after* the hurt had happened,
because she (and she will agree with this) cut off communication
with me. *Before* that, before I knew anything about any hurt,
I thought we were friends. We saw each other every week, hung
out together, had dinner, watched t.v., talked all the time.
As far as I could tell, it went from us being friends -- not
super *close* friends, but friends -- and everything being fine,
to her hating me, overnight. And this happened a year and a
half into the relationship.
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
>: the newcomer giving a regular ol' handshake, which unexpectedly
>: causes pain, which leads the recipient to discover a previously
>: unknown medical problem with hir hand.
>Now, are you willing to let go?
Of the hand, or of the person?
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
>: covering a disagreement in another relationship? How, really,
>: could the newcomer be expected to even *know* there was any
>: such disagreement lurking?
>But of course then. It's not their fault when, once finding
>out they are a catalyst for a painful disturbance, they
>don't back off a bit and let things get fixed?
Backing off (depending on exactly what is meant by "backing
off") is not, IMO, always the best thing to do. My own
feeling is more that if I've caused some harm, I should
stick around and help, if there's anything I can do to help.
Sometimes there's nothing that can be done to help, either
by backing off or staying. Sometimes one or another of the
other people involved don't *want* you to back off... or
*they* don't back off. Sometimes backing off has other
consequences.
>"I didn't know that negotiating X would cause great upset in
>your long time partner but, since I didn't know about it,
>it's not my fault. So, how about X anyway? Huh?"
"Neither of us knew that talking about X would cause upset in
your longer term partner, but now that we know there's a con-
flict, what do you, the hinge person, want to do about it? I
will try to support whatever you choose."
"I didn't know that starting X a long time ago would cause
upset in your other partner much later, but now that I've got
as involved as I have and have major consequences for myself
and others tied up in X, I don't feel I can just stop X now."
"I didn't know that condition X would cause upset later in
your other partner, but, as I told you in the beginning, X
is a bottom-line issue for me. I know X will continue to
cause some discomfort to your partner, but not-X will cause
the end of our relationship. What do you want to do?"
>: Giving examples on extreme ends doesn't mean I think most
>: situations are that extreme.
>Then where are the middle examples, Angi?
All around.
--
-- Angi
'mathochist' Angela Long
jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>: >Developing a sense of *empathy*, or paying attention to what
>: >you currently possess, especially when it goes against what
>: >you want.
>angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
>: "Empathy." Ah, mindreading, apparently.
>No. They are different things.
In that case, I have *no idea* what you mean by "empathy."
I have known two meanings for that word: one, identifying
with a person's feelings, after sie tells you what hir
feelings are. "My back is sore from all that walking"
"yeah, I know what you mean, mine gets that way too" --
that's what I know as "empathy." Two, the science-fiction
notion of being able to read emotions telepathically, a la
counsellor Deanna Troy.
Care to define what it is *you* mean by "empathy?"
>You say you cannot do a thing, therfore you cannot.
Then explain how it's done.
>Oh, the use of empathy, and the fine tuning of it, is a
>skill not impossible to obtain. It sometimes takes work,
>though. Sometimes, we have to be willing to hear what we
>don't want to hear, to give of ourselves in a way we had not
>expected, to place our immediate needs secondary to the
>situation. It is one of the first steps in the ability to
>give selflessly.
>This is different than martyrdom, of course.
Is it? How?
To give anything, I first need to know what needs to be
given, and the only way I can know what somebody else needs
is for them to tell me. (Except for my children, in which
case I judge what they need when they don't have that judg-
ment.)
I can give "selflessly," to some extent. (The extent often
depends on just how much self I have to give at the moment.)
I cannot, however, give "familylessly" -- I can put my own
needs behind others', but not my family's, not my children's
needs. Sometimes, my needs and my children's needs are in-
tertwined; sometimes, they are in conflict.
--
-- Angi
malgosia askanas
piranha wrote:
> is it then ok to make sure the child is fed
> and dry, but otherwise to hell with that responsibility, that
> share of love? and if it's not ok to withdraw one's love from
> a child, why then is it ok to withdraw it from an adult?
Are we talking about responsibility or about love? If one withdraws love,
what does it mean to say that this is "OK" or "not OK"? Of course it is
never "OK", but will that bring the love back?
> because there is a side in me that does not want to cause
> pain to people i love. can i stay away from involvements? it
> appears not. while people bind me terribly at times, they also
> give me something that i can't get elsewhere.
Isn't there a difference between _feeling responsible_ and using
"responsibility" as a coercive argument upon others who don't feel it
themselves?
> good for you. then that's how you run your life. it ought to
> be paradaisical. and never a need, or a wish for somebody to
> be there for you while zie is gallivanting? uh huh.
Isn't there a difference between wishing for something and claiming that
therefore the other person has the "responsibility" to fulfill that wish?
-m
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <58s2j9$u...@excalibur.net5c.io.org>,
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <58q8jl$a...@panix2.panix.com>, Arnold Vance <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>way of having relationships.
>
> really? i think it smacks of the way of relationships that
> squicks free spirits, whether true ones or wanna-bes. hedo-
> nists don't like it much either, i think.
Excuse me? I call myself a hedonist (i.e., I rarely do things I don't
want to do), but I handle responsibility quite well, thankyewverymuch.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
Fifth Virtual Anniversary: 17 days and counting
piranha
In article <58t4nq$r...@news.bayarea.net>,
Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>Cappy Harrison <ca...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>In other words... let's say Dave and Jane are a couple who are open to new
>>relationships. Dave starts to date Leslie. Dave and Jane react to the
>>new relationship in a way that uncovers previously hidden problems in
>>their relationship. Hence, the existence of Leslie in their lives
>>"happens to provide the opportunity for discussing and discovering" a
>>pre-existing "disagreement of incompatibility of some sort."
>
>until Dave and Jane had settled some of their problems. That's what *I*
>thought we were talking about. :-)
_i_ am not trying to pound thru some message for a specific
situation. and as a result i am not sure that "backing off" is
always the best thing to do. undoubtedly jane would like it if
leslie just disappeared into never-neverland. but how would
dave like it? what if leslie suggested backing off, but dave
said "no, i really don't think you should"? what if backing
off puts the problems between dave and jane simply on the back-
burner, since now the situation is past, and it won't come up
again until dave starts dating monica, and then we get a replay,
and monica better back off...
backing off means what, exactly? stop seeing dave at all? see
him only when jane agrees to it, under conditions jane imposes?
where did the "for poly to work, everyone must get something out
of it" go in regard to leslie?
if i was leslie, i'd probably back some off even if dave said "i
don't want you to, there is no need; jane will come around".
i'd _insist_ on speaking with jane directly if there is trouble
brewing, because i do not want to speak thru a biased translator.
but what would i do if it became obvious jane wasn't interested
in talking to me? if she took everything i said and twisted it?
if i ended up feeling that she really is only interested in ha-
ving me back off for good, outta here, goodbye to dave?
what if i was jane, and i sincerely thought leslie was bad news
for dave, for our relationship, for our future together?
*ick*. depending on how involved i got with dave, that might be
a very difficult situation to solve. and no, i don't think that
backing off is automatically the best solution for everyone.
-piranha
Stef Jones
'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>That's a good attitude. But it doesn't seem to me to apply to
>>>*all* secondary relationships. I'm thinking, for example, of
>>>a guy I had dated (and slept with) a few times when I met my
>>>last partner. [...]
>>So, on the one hand, you didn't want your new partner to meet your
>>secondary because you decided "that wasn't the nature of that
>>relationship."
>I don't think I'd even have termed it a "secondary relationship."
>Just because there was sex doesn't mean it was much above the
>level of acquaintanceship.
You did term it as a secondary relationship, above.
'mathochist' Angela Long
Stef Jones <st...@cat-and-dragon.com> wrote:
>'mathochist' Angela Long <angi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>That's a good attitude. But it doesn't seem to me to apply to
>>>>*all* secondary relationships. I'm thinking, for example, of
>>>>a guy I had dated (and slept with) a few times when I met my
>>>>last partner. [...]
>>I don't think I'd even have termed it a "secondary relationship."
>>Just because there was sex doesn't mean it was much above the
>>level of acquaintanceship.
>You did term it as a secondary relationship, above.
In the broadest sense, in response to someone who would have
considered it one because it did include sex, yes. It would
apparently meet hir criteria for a secondary relationship;
it would not meet *mine*.
--
-- Angi
piranha
In article <58tas3$i...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net>,
jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Andrea Cookson <acoo...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>: On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, jenner wrote:
>: > This
>: > ignores the fact that sometimes people lie, even if they
>: > don't want to.
>: This denies free will. I hope you understand that you are
>: describing a pathological liar.
>
>So, someone who lies to us to protect us, lies out of fear
>for themselves, lies to please us, lies to protect another,
>is a pathological liar?
i already disagreed with andrea elsewhere about this,
and while i don't consider most such lies to be patho-
logical, i also don't see lying as a good thing except
under extraordinary circumstances.
>Damn, we have an epidemic!
yeah, we actually do. way too many people lie. i don't
want to be protected by somebody else's lies unless my
life is at risk. i am not a child, i do not need some-
body else deciding what i should and shouldn't know. it
does also not please me to be lied to; it's especially
hurtful when i believe something pleasing originally
and only later find out that it was a lie, because now
not only my pleasure in the compliment is erased, but my
trust in this person is shaken. alltogether not a plea-
sant situation.
lying out of fear for oneself can be justifiable, again,
when serious harm is at stake, danger to one's life, or
livelihood. i don't condemn gays in the military who've
lied about their sexual orientation. but i don't like it
when it becomes an easy excuse to avoid conflict and un-
pleasant scenes from others.
lies i really disdain are crafty ones that adhere to the
letter of the law but violate the spirit.
and stupid little shit lies irk me -- there's a commercial
for some cellphone company: he's bought her this great
new cellphone, it's all wrapped up with a bow. he's on
the way to her house for christmas, the weather is lousy,
and he comes upon an elderly woman who's driven her car
off the road and appears to be in shock. quickly he rips
the wrap from the cellphone and calls for help.
when he finally gets to her place, late, kiss-kiss, she
hands him a nicely wrapped little something, he hands her
the cellphone and says "i didn't have time to wrap it".
the paramour and i are both annoyed enough by this ending
to turn the commercial off whenever it comes on. it's so
dumb -- having helped that woman is such a great thing to
have done, why in the world lie? why not say "you never
guess why this isn't wrapped"? *blort*. cute little gig,
that reference, but it annoys me.
-piranha
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: >angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: >: What favor is that, happening to be the catalyst for your dis-
: >: covering a disagreement in another relationship? How, really,
: >: could the newcomer be expected to even *know* there was any
: >: such disagreement lurking?
: >But of course then. It's not their fault when, once finding
: >out they are a catalyst for a painful disturbance, they
: >don't back off a bit and let things get fixed?
: Backing off (depending on exactly what is meant by "backing
: off") is not, IMO, always the best thing to do. My own
: feeling is more that if I've caused some harm, I should
: stick around and help, if there's anything I can do to help.
One could ask.
: Sometimes there's nothing that can be done to help, either
: by backing off or staying. Sometimes one or another of the
: other people involved don't *want* you to back off... or
: *they* don't back off. Sometimes backing off has other
: consequences.
And yet it doesn't seem your first consideration, when it
sure seems like a good idea to many; to simply cease the
thing that caused a disturbance until the problem is worked
out. Why is that?
: >"I didn't know that negotiating X would cause great upset in
: >your long time partner but, since I didn't know about it,
: >it's not my fault. So, how about X anyway? Huh?"
: "Neither of us knew that talking about X would cause upset in
: your longer term partner, but now that we know there's a con-
: flict, what do you, the hinge person, want to do about it? I
: will try to support whatever you choose."
Reasonable but I notice you don't offer that you should do
something.
: "I didn't know that starting X a long time ago would cause
: upset in your other partner much later, but now that I've got
: as involved as I have and have major consequences for myself
: and others tied up in X, I don't feel I can just stop X now."
"I'm sorry...goodbye."
: "I didn't know that condition X would cause upset later in
: your other partner, but, as I told you in the beginning, X
: is a bottom-line issue for me. I know X will continue to
: cause some discomfort to your partner, but not-X will cause
: the end of our relationship. What do you want to do?"
" It wasn't our fault, but I will not sacrifice that
relationship over this. If we can't come to an
understanding, I will miss you."
Those weren't middle examples. I suggest some other
attempts if you are interested in pursuing this. All those
examples make it very clear that you have done absolutly
nothing wrong. We can't all be perfect.
jenner
angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: jenner <jenn...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: >angi...@u.washington.edu ('mathochist' Angela Long) wrote:
: >: the newcomer giving a regular ol' handshake, which unexpectedly
: >: causes pain, which leads the recipient to discover a previously
: >: unknown medical problem with hir hand.
: >Now, are you willing to let go?
: Of the hand, or of the person?
All of it, if it meant the cessation of the pain.
jlam...@calarts.edu
In article <58pl0e$f...@excalibur.net5c.io.org>,
pir...@excalibur.net5c.io.org (piranha) wrote:
>
> [reformatted.]
>
> In article <8503602...@dejanews.com>, <jlam...@calarts.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Just because there was already a problem in the relationship doesn't mean
> >that it's all right for you to come in and bring it to the surface. If
> >you had a cut and I came over and rubbed salt in it, I could say "this
> >wouldn't hurt if you hadn't cut yourself, so it's not _my_ fault," but
> >in saying that I would be missing the point, wouldn't I?
>
> i think you're missing the point that angi was hovering around,
> which was that i as the third person coming into an existing
> relationship might not know at all that you cut yourself, and
> i am not rubbing any salt in your wounds purposefully -- i just
> spilled some salt because the container broke when i picked it
> up.
>
Hmmm... I was rather under the impression that this thread was about how to
behave in a morally responsible manner. You mean everyone's been using all this
bandwidth simply to assert that, under certain circumstances, human beings may
not be able to predict with perfect accuracy the results of their actions? What
a momentous discovery! Think we should publish our findings?
Okay, utterly gratuitous sarcasm aside: I think the main gist if this thread is
about what to do once the salt is spilled -- to continue this rather lame
metaphor (I can say that, since I'm the one who used it). I got the impression,
from some of the posts on the thread, that some people here might find it
terribly easy to use "I'm just revealing a problem that was already there" to
justify doing very hurtful things. My immediate point was that you aren't
necessarily doing a couple a favor by bringing these hidden problems to the
surface.
My broader, more important point is that once you have made yourself part of a
situation, you have a certain amount of power over how that situation develops.
Once you see that problems are happening, whether you caused them or "provided
the opportunity to discover them" or whether they are entirely unrelated to your
presence, you still have to decide what _you_ are going to do, what _your_
contribution to this whole complex of relationships is going to be. You have to
make a choice, whether that choice is to back off or to get closer, to
communicate with your partner or your partner's partner, to change your course
or to keep doing exactly what you were doing. It's your choice, and it will
have real consequences, and you can't wash your hands of all responsibility by
saying "I'm just revealing a problem that was already there."
> [story of J who "stole" jason's partner E, zapped]
> >[E.] was right: the underlying problems would have come to the surface
> >eventually -- on the other hand, if it hadn't been for J, perhaps by
> >the time they did come to the surface, E and I would have grown closer,
> >the relationship grown stronger, and perhaps these problems might have
> >been dealt with and overcome, rather than having them tear the relation-
> >ship apart, which is what happened. I still can't help thinking that E
> >and I could have had a good thing, if it hadn't been for J.
>
> but this is entirely wishful thinking (i think you know that) --
> we cannot know what happened. time, place, circumstances, per-
> sonalities all come together to affect the story, and if you make
> a change to any of them, you get a different story.
>
> i don't always follow my own advice either, tho -- but i tend
> to put a lot more responsibility on the plate of my partner.
> no matter what J did, my partner should have had the character
> to not let something bad happen to our relationship. J is not
> to blame for my partner's less than optimal choices.
>
> as a result, i engage less in wishful thinking, but probably too
> much in wondering why i picked such losers. :-)
I was only using J as an example in the abstract. In the actual situation, I
wasn't at all upset or angry with J. Believe me, I blamed everything on E. :-)
(Actually, I heaped plenty of blame on myself as well. And I was angry at J
somewhat later, but only because after all that, he ended up treating E rather
badly.)
>
> >In some ways this is off-topic, since we are discussing what behaviour is
> >"respectful" of the existing relationship, presumably for the benefit of
> >those who have some intention of _being_ respectful, which J obviously
> >did not.
>
> did J obviously not have that intention? are we talking about
> a poly relationship, or a mono one? if the former, then trying
> to pick up an old relationship doesn't sound per se disrespect-
> ful to me, just like starting a new one isn't.
When I said J wanted to "steal" E from me, I meant that not only did he want
himself back in hir life, but he wanted me out of it. J wanted a mono
relationship, so whether E and I were poly is really beside the point.
But since you asked (don't ever ask me about my personal life unless you want
details, because I just _love_ to talk about myself!): we were in a sort of
vague, ill-defined area that wasn't exactly mono and wasn't exactly poly -- sort
of our attempt at a flexible, "go-with-the-flow" compromise between the two, I
guess, since we seemed to have differing attitudes about the issue. (I'm pretty
much poly, whereas she claims to be inherently monogamous, despite much evidence
to the contrary. Come to think of it, there's plenty of evidence against my
claim to be poly, too.)
-jason
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Arnold Vance
In article <58t4h8$r...@news.bayarea.net>,
Stef Jones <st...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>In article <58q8jl$a...@panix2.panix.com>, Arnold Vance <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>Well heck, he can always just model his way out of it. (Or turn around
>and play manipulative word games with someone else. The dog maybe.)
Good boy!
-a