What does "monogamous" mean???
ho...@sun.sws.uiuc.edu
is something off about the way we use monogamous and polyamorous sometimes.
Monogamous-wanting only one love
Polyamorous-wanting more than one love
(define love any old damn way you want, I know my way and it suits me) ;-)
But that doesn't mean that a monogamous person has to expect zir lover
to be monogamous, they may very well be happy with the other being poly.
It also doesn't mean that a polyamorous person has to be okay with their
loves being poly as well.
I guess I just feel that the ability to deal well with your lover having
another is separate from whether or not you yourself feel interested in
having others.
I have two lovers, one of whom is clearly monogamous but doesn't mind that
I am not, the other of whom is (I suspect) still working that out for
himself (hello darling....) but is okay with me and my state. Also, both
of them, at one time or another have had "others" and I was fine with it,
but I could see the places where I could have been jealous, and the places
where I could have been not able to handle it.
Just cause you are monogamous doesn't mean that you necessarily won't be
able to deal with my lifestyle, and just because I am poly doesn't mean
that I will always deal with you being poly well......
Am I making sufficient sense????
holly
heather e blair
>Monogamous-wanting only one love
>Polyamorous-wanting more than one love
>But that doesn't mean that a monogamous person has to expect zir lover
>to be monogamous, they may very well be happy with the other being poly.
>It also doesn't mean that a polyamorous person has to be okay with their
>loves being poly as well.
>
>I guess I just feel that the ability to deal well with your lover having
>another is separate from whether or not you yourself feel interested in
>having others.
>Am I making sufficient sense????
Yes, you are. I would call a person monogamous if they are only
interested in one lover at a time. They may or may not be ok with
that lover having other lovers.
However, I think my idea of "poly" does include the idea that the
poly person would accept (more or less) their lovers having other
lovers. Else it seems a bit unfair, doesn't it?
--
- Heather Blair h4...@midway.uchicago.edu
Greg Lindahl
>I don't want to literally talk about definitions, but I do find that there
>is something off about the way we use monogamous and polyamorous sometimes.
>
>Monogamous-wanting only one love
Actually, you'll find that monogamous people can't even agree on what
monogamy is, so I try to avoid defining it. What you say is really
reasonable, but try it in soc.couples and see how many flames you attract.
For example...
>But that doesn't mean that a monogamous person has to expect zir lover
>to be monogamous,
You'd get a lot of flames over that sentence. Most monogamous people
would be 100% certain that every monogamous person expects their lover
to be monogamous as well. I tend to call people who call themselves
monogamous but don't mind if their lover is monogamous
"poly-compatible", just like some people are "bi-compatible".
>It also doesn't mean that a polyamorous person has to be okay with their
>loves being poly as well.
Sad but true.
-- g
Holly Wilper
However, I think my idea of "poly" does include the idea that the
poly person would accept (more or less) their lovers having other
lovers. Else it seems a bit unfair, doesn't it?
And I add:
But that's part of it.....Life is kinda unfair sometimes and double
standards happen.
I have a few that I impose on myself. For instance I would never take
a lover without discussing it with both of my currents (of even the one
night stand variety) but I have no problem with them just letting me
know afterwards.
I think everyone should strive to be as accepting and fulfilling to
their partner(s)'s needs/wants as possible.....and that includes being
accepting of poly (and bi, and non-vanilla whathaveyou, need to have a
clean house, whatever). But I have seen a good number of people in this
group berating themselves for not being more "okay" with their loves
choices, and I just wanted to say that just because you are okay with
you being poly, doesn't mean that necessarily it will be easy for you
to deal with them being poly.
Honestly try the best you can, and don't be so hard on yourself.
(ha, thats the kind of advice that the giver never takes themselves)
holly
Stef Jones
>Monogamous-wanting only one love
>Polyamorous-wanting more than one love
[...]
>But that doesn't mean that a monogamous person has to expect zir lover
>to be monogamous, they may very well be happy with the other being poly.
>It also doesn't mean that a polyamorous person has to be okay with their
>loves being poly as well.
Yes! I think that a lot of people conveniently forget this, and assume
that being polyamorous means automagically feeling OK about one's loves'
being poly.
I have heard this argument: "But *you're* poly -- how can you have a
problem with your lovers' being poly?"
Yes, that would be nice and neat and logical and fair. But sometimes (OK,
often :-) feelings don't work that way.
For example, some people develop poly inclinations because they easily feel
lonely or isolated. They need a lot of intense attention to keep that
feeling at bay, and having several loves can make that easier to achieve.
In some cases it might help to assuage the loneliness to maintain the
illusion of having someone (or more than one) absolutely all to yourself.
But if your love(s) are poly, if they want to spend time with and talk
about and think about other loves, it can easily derail the illusion.
If this is operating in someone, it is more likely to be difficult for
that person to accept their loves' being poly, even if they themselves are
poly.
So why is it assumed that mutual polyamory is better? We accept that
people are poly because "that's the way they are." Why is it OK to accept
that, but not so OK to accept that someone might be poly and want one or
more monogamous loves?
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than
a conformist it's another nonconformist who doesn't
conform to the prevailing standard of nonconformity. -- Bill Vaughan
Louise C Mallory
In article <stefCLF...@netcom.com>, Stef Jones <st...@netcom.com> wrote:
>[...]
>I have heard this argument: "But *you're* poly -- how can you have a
>problem with your lovers' being poly?"
>
>Yes, that would be nice and neat and logical and fair. But sometimes (OK,
>often :-) feelings don't work that way.
>
Well, we've been talking for quite some time here about the different ways to
be poly. Even if you and your lovers are all poly, that doesn't mean you would
all be "the same kind of" poly.
When I get interested in someone new, I *like* the state of infatuation, of
wanting to think about him, talk about him, dream about him, all the time. A
partner whose interest in others is less emotional sometimes finds my state
either puzzling or annoying.
Louise
Elizabeth Holden
In a previous article, ho...@sun.sws.uiuc.edu ("Holly Wilper") says:
>... just because you are okay with
>you being poly, doesn't mean that necessarily it will be easy for you
>to deal with them being poly.
Or you might be okay with them being poly and then find that you can't be
comfortable with their choices in lovers. Or that you might be fine
until you feel you are not getting enough of their time, attention or caring.
>Honestly try the best you can, and don't be so hard on yourself.
That'st he best anyone can do... in any situation.
>
>(ha, thats the kind of advice that the giver never takes themselves)
Yup: easier said than done. But something to strive for.
--
Namaste,
Elizabeth
Peter Arrgh Korn
(with some starting assistance from ho...@sun.sws.uiuc.edu)
>
> [discussion of a poly person wanting to be involved with monos]
>
>So why is it assumed that mutual polyamory is better? We accept that
>people are poly because "that's the way they are." Why is it OK to accept
>that, but not so OK to accept that someone might be poly and want one or
>more monogamous loves?
What is best for any group of people is what is best for them. They
determine it. If that best is a poly person involved with two monos,
so be it.
But there is a line between what you might prefer, and what you have
a reasonable right to expect. If a poly person says to me that they
prefer to be involved with mono types, fine. However, I think it is a
conciet to either demand that the people you are involved with be
monogamous and never have any other loves, or even only go as far as
expecting their monogamy to not change.
Also, for me, being actively poly provided me with a different set of
challenges from my wife being actively poly. I feel I've grown quite
a bit in the last several months. Accepting and embracing my wife's
lover entailed a lot of soul searching, insecurity conquering, and
especially the further development of my communication skills.
A poly person who is never involved with other poly people (or
at least, is never accepting of their lovers' lovers) is likely
missing out on a lot of growth and love and joy.
So, from that argument, mutual poly *is* better (in general, at least
at some point in your life, your milage may vary, etc. etc.).
Peter
--
"The only way to dispense with "This above all: to thine own self be true,
temptation is to yield to it." And it must follow, as the night the day,
-Oscar Wilde Thou canst not then be false to any man."
Peter "Arrgh" Korn _Hamlet_ I, iii
Ken Chaddock
>that being polyamorous means automagically feeling OK about one's loves'
>being poly.
>I have heard this argument: "But *you're* poly -- how can you have a
>problem with your lovers' being poly?"
>Yes, that would be nice and neat and logical and fair. But sometimes (OK,
>often :-) feelings don't work that way.
>For example, some people develop poly inclinations because they easily feel
>lonely or isolated. They need a lot of intense attention to keep that
>feeling at bay, and having several loves can make that easier to achieve.
>In some cases it might help to assuage the loneliness to maintain the
>illusion of having someone (or more than one) absolutely all to yourself.
>But if your love(s) are poly, if they want to spend time with and talk
>about and think about other loves, it can easily derail the illusion.
>If this is operating in someone, it is more likely to be difficult for
>that person to accept their loves' being poly, even if they themselves are
>poly.
>So why is it assumed that mutual polyamory is better? We accept that
>people are poly because "that's the way they are." Why is it OK to accept
>that, but not so OK to accept that someone might be poly and want one or
>more monogamous loves?
My personal problem with this is the fact that it is a double standard.
Anyone who feels this way is, IMHO, not truly polyamorous. How can you
really think that something is alright for yourself but not for your
partner? Aren't you in serious danger of being called (justifibly) a
hypocrite?
I feel very uncomfortable with a concept of polyamory that includes
hypocrisy. Similar arguments can be made for the person who is married to a
monogamous person but is doing a little cheating on the side!
If we accept this sort of hypocrisy, we'll also have to accept lying,
cheating, deceipt etc, etc.
...Ken
Greg Lindahl
Ken Chaddock <kcha...@neu-a.dnd.ca> wrote:
> I feel very uncomfortable with a concept of polyamory that includes
>hypocrisy. Similar arguments can be made for the person who is married to a
>monogamous person but is doing a little cheating on the side!
>
> If we accept this sort of hypocrisy, we'll also have to accept lying,
>cheating, deceipt etc, etc.
Nobody said you had to accept it, Ken. They were just stating that it
exists. There's a huge difference between realizing that something
exists, and engaging in it.
Hypocrisy exists. Cheating exists. Lying exists. Personally, I don't
plan on engaging in any of these. But people who do can still be
polyamorous or monogamous.
Thanks for fixing your email address.
Carol Suelzle
>From: kcha...@neu-a.dnd.ca (Ken Chaddock)
> My personal problem with this is the fact that it is a double standard.
>Anyone who feels this way is, IMHO, not truly polyamorous. How can you
>really think that something is alright for yourself but not for your
>partner? Aren't you in serious danger of being called (justifibly) a
>hypocrite?
We all have double standards about some things. We all have things that we
feel we know how to do, handle, cope with, etc, and don't feel that other
people are qualified to do those things, or have proven they're not.
For instance, in my house, I *don't* make coffee. Ever. I let my husband do
it. For what ever reason, he makes good coffee, and I don't. If I want
coffee, and he's not home, I either go out and buy a cup at Starbucks, or I do
without. It's O.K. for him to make coffee, but it's not O.K. for me, in the
sense that I'd be wasting it.
Lots of people can't sing. They don't allow these people in choirs, because
they'll muck it up for everyone else. My husband is one of these. He's tone
deaf. It is hypocrisy to be a singer in a choir, and not *allow* another
person in the choir because they can 'sing', but the can't keep a tune, or
sing in time?
If one knows one's partner well enough to know that if they fall in love with
someone else, they'll be *gone* - if they're definately the 'one love at a
time' type (and I believe there are people like this), then I don't think it's
hypocrisy to feel as if it's something they can't handle, and if they're
committed to the relationship, they shouldn't be having other relationships
that will muck things up.
Polyamory is not for everyone. Network management is not for everyone. Race
car driving is not for everyone. Parenthood is not for everyone. Marriage
isn't for everyone. It is not hypocrisy to believe that something that is
right for one's self isn't right for everyone.
Carol Suelzle
Ryk
>In article <kchaddoc.2...@neu-a.dnd.ca> kcha...@neu-a.dnd.ca (Ken Chaddock) writes:
>>From: kcha...@neu-a.dnd.ca (Ken Chaddock)
>
>> My personal problem with this is the fact that it is a double standard.
[lots of really good stuff from carol deleted, about different things
working better for different people]
>Polyamory is not for everyone. Network management is not for everyone.
>Carol Suelzle
Symmetry is not for everyone! If I relate to my loves only in the same way
they relate to me, we'll be looking at problems in a hurry! M just told me
she's sure she can only focus on one person at a time. Does that mean _I_
should focus all my attention on P?
We ain't all built alike...if we're lucky we can put a fit together.....
--
Ryk........Email: r...@weber.me.queensu.ca
Ellen Dickson
ko...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Peter "Arrgh" Korn) writes:
>But there is a line between what you might prefer, and what you have
>a reasonable right to expect.
own polyness. Circular argument, but you know what I mean. Loving more
than one is the least of your troubles. Accepting that someone one
you love may love someone else as well as you is/can be trickier.
Recently, some events happened which made me examine myself in terms
of my own definition. A love stood me up to be with another love and I
flew off the handle, I cried, I stormed... all over, not a pretty
sight. I was pretty ashamed of myself but was unable to dispel my
feelings of hurt.
Two weeks later, it happened again with a different amor. Didn't
bother me in the least... So I sat down and examined both cases to find
the differences which I assumed must exist. I discovered that the first
incident had occurred without even so much as a "sorry but..." whereas
the second began with "Sorry" and tried to make amends and reschedule
according to _my_ schedule.
I have to admit, I don't think I've ever been so happy to have been
stood up, (except for the time I got stood up twice on the same day,
by a man and a woman which left me in helpless giggles over being
living proof that being bi _does_ double your chances of being
stood up on a Saturady night), because it affirmed my own poly-ness
which I had sadly begun to doubt.
I seem to be insistent on poly-ness and "polite-ess"
(or politesse for bilinguals).
* Ellen Dickson, That's _Mrs_ Hotbibabe to you! (NB WEEKEND POSTER ONLY)*
* dick...@qucdn.queensu.ca, g...@suvm.acs.syr.edu, NYSY...@aol.com *
* Teora@furrymuck, Wookiel@IRC, Mrs^2 Monsterlady@Soapbox *
* DISCLAIMER: "It's hard to work in a group when you're omnipotent" Q. *
Stef Jones
> Agreed. My own definition of being poly is accepting your mate(s)
>own polyness.
Interesting, but many people here have mates that are not poly; if you
never face the issue of accepting your mate's polyness, where does that
leave you?
I accept my friends' and lovers' polyness but I have had trouble accepting
my partner's -- it's unclear whether this has to do with behavior, with my
idea of the difference between lover and partner, or both.
I think "accept" therefore is a bit simplistic as a sole definition of
poly, since there are varying degrees of acceptance and difficulty with
acceptance can come in many forms.
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Language is a virus from outer space. -- William S.
Burroughs
barbara trumpinski
>Interesting, but many people here have mates that are not poly; if you
>never face the issue of accepting your mate's polyness, where does that
>leave you?
>I accept my friends' and lovers' polyness but I have had trouble accepting
>my partner's -- it's unclear whether this has to do with behavior, with my
>idea of the difference between lover and partner, or both.
well...i am poly and my partner is not. it is HIS choice. if he were
poly i don't know how i would react. i keep saying i would be
accepting...i think that is only fair. but i am afraid i would be too
insecure to be really happy about it.
i would have to accept it in the name of fairness.
kitten
--
@@@kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu@@@barb...@prairienet.org /\ /\
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?" {=.=}
"just another possum on the information highway" ~
Ken Chaddock
>feel we know how to do, handle, cope with, etc, and don't feel that other
>people are qualified to do those things, or have proven they're not.
I agree with what you say but think you may have mis-read the origional
post. There's a difference between a "consentual" double standard and one
which is imposed upon you. The origional post talked about people who wanted
to have multiple lovers/sex partners but didn't want their lovers to have
other partners.
>For instance, in my house, I *don't* make coffee. Ever. I let my husband do
>it. For what ever reason, he makes good coffee, and I don't. If I want
>coffee, and he's not home, I either go out and buy a cup at Starbucks, or I do
>without. It's O.K. for him to make coffee, but it's not O.K. for me, in the
>sense that I'd be wasting it.
Again, this is based upon a "consentual" situation. Even if your husband
isn't around, you don't make coffee. This isn't a double standard, you
exhibit the same behaviour regardless of wither your husband is influencing
you or not.
>Lots of people can't sing. They don't allow these people in choirs, because
>they'll muck it up for everyone else. My husband is one of these. He's tone
>deaf. It is hypocrisy to be a singer in a choir, and not *allow* another
>person in the choir because they can 'sing', but the can't keep a tune, or
>sing in time?
In a word *no*, and you've just done a 180 degree turn here, you are now
making my argument for me.
As an example, do you think that it's a double standard or hypocrisy for
the vast majority of drivers to insist that visually impared people not be
allowed to drive ?
These are restrictions based upon the ability to adequately perform some
activity in which the rest of the group has some vested interest, it only
becomes a double standard or hypocrisy if, for example, a member of the
choir, who *can't hold a tune in a bucket themself* restricts someone else *
FOR THAT SAME REASON*.
>If one knows one's partner well enough to know that if they fall in love
with >someone else, they'll be *gone* - if they're definately the 'one love
at a >time' type (and I believe there are people like this), then I don't
think it's>hypocrisy to feel as if it's something they can't handle, and if
they're >committed to the relationship, they shouldn't be having other
relationships >that will muck things up.
But is it your right to tell them they *CAN"T* and do you think this will
any reasonable chance of preventing them from meeting that special someone ?
The divorce rates seem to argue otherwise!
>Polyamory is not for everyone. Network management is not for everyone. Race
>car driving is not for everyone. Parenthood is not for everyone. Marriage
>isn't for everyone. It is not hypocrisy to believe that something that is
>right for one's self isn't right for everyone.
True, however, we're into those special areas where you're saying that
you have the right to make decisions and determinations for other people.
This may be acceptable when the other person is somehow impared or
immature and your judgement is *really* in the best interests of the other
person. But when *you* have a vested interest in the decision, how can you (
or anyone else) be sure the decision is made in the best interest of the
other person ? Who says that that other (new) love you've talked about
above, isn't the best thing for your partner ? It's not up to you to make
that determination!
...Ken
Stef Jones
>[attribution lost]
>>We all have double standards about some things. We all have things that we
>>feel we know how to do, handle, cope with, etc, and don't feel that other
>>people are qualified to do those things, or have proven they're not.
> I agree with what you say but think you may have mis-read the origional
>post. There's a difference between a "consentual" double standard and one
>which is imposed upon you. The origional post talked about people who wanted
>to have multiple lovers/sex partners but didn't want their lovers to have
>other partners.
There is a way that it can be a consensual double standard: if a
polyamorous person and a monogamous person are partners.
My post was intended to point out a blind spot, or a muddy spot anyway, in
some thinking about poly that I see. Although now that I'm re-reading this
post, I see that it is a muddy spot in thinking about romantic preferences
in general.
Some claim they are poly because they "just are" and they don't want to be
restricted to a form of relationship which is bad for them. Fine. But when
they get into a mutually poly relationship and have problems dealing with
their partner's polyamory, they say something different. They say, "I have
to learn to deal with this, even if it hurts." And if it turns out that
they can't deal with it, then they might claim incompatibility or they
might decide, "Well, I have to be monogamous because I can't deal with my
partner's polyamory."
My point is: why is there a difference in the way people think of these
two situations? Why is it OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a poly
partner" but less OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a monogamous
partner"?
Suppose a poly person didn't look for poly partners, they looked for mono
partners who didn't mind their being poly. How do we feel about that? A
bit squeamish? Why? Why is a consensual double standard not as good as a
single standard?
Isn't it somewhat more acceptable for a gay person to prefer another gay
person as a partner than to prefer a bi person? Isn't it OK for a white
person to prefer a white person as a partner, but a little less OK for a
white person to prefer a black person?
Why are we uncomfortable with preferences unless they are preferences for
people who are *similar* to us?
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Nobody can be exactly like me. Sometimes even I have
trouble doing it. --Tallulah Bankhead
Stefani Whelan
Stef Jones wrote:
>>Why are we uncomfortable with preferences unless they are preferences for
people who are *similar* to us?
Stef Whelan writes back:
You are making the assumptions that do not necessarily apply. *I* am
uncomfortable because I see it as a lack of acceptance, not a preference.
In your example it was not, I tried mono partners, and I tried poly
partners, and I think I prefer mono. It is: I can't accept that my
partner exhibit the same behaviour that I do. That is, this is not what
they *prefer* but the alternative left after you exclude what they can
not handle. This lack of acceptance is what bothers me. It makes their
claim to be poly a hypocrisy (to me) because my definition of poly is an
acceptance of the possiblity of having more than one lover. That concept
applies to everyone - it is not a priviledge that I claim for myself but
deny others. Harping back to the comparison with bisexuality - it is like
saying "Hey, I can sleep with men and women, that's ok. But it is not ok
for *you* to sleep with men and woman."
Stef
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>In article <kchaddoc.2...@neu-a.dnd.ca> kcha...@neu-a.dnd.ca (Ken Chaddock) writes:
>>
>>immature and your judgement is *really* in the best interests of the other
>>person.
>
>the power to decide these things for them), the *only* thing I can really do
>is say "These are the rules if you want to live here, if you choose to do
><this thing> you will no longer live here."
I don't want to turn a.p into misc.kids, but I'm uncomfortable with this
as expressed. I mean, you're not going to say, "Follow my rules or
leave," to an 9-year-old, right?
So, given that one agrees with Carol's philosophy of relationships, how
does one raise small children?
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
Hmmmm.... time to get some more Astroglide.
Jim Baranski
I don't want to turn a.p into misc.kids, but I'm uncomfortable with this
as expressed. I mean, you're not going to say, "Follow my rules or
leave," to an 9-year-old, right?
So, given that one agrees with Carol's philosophy of relationships, how
does one raise small children?
Sometimes, that is all that you *can* do. If the kid in question is violent,
or abusive, and nothing else you have tried, works, the only thing you can do
is refuse to be a part of it. It doesn't matter if it's a kid, or an adult.
If a kid is uncontrollable, perhaps they're better off in some sort of
institution, untill they realize that their behavior has consequences, and
decide how they want to live their life.
Of course it helps to give kids some control over their own lives, and not be
too rule bound, but when it comes down to important issues, all you can really
do is not be a part of it.
Jim.
Peter Radcliffe
ponderings.
I'll probably just go back to lurking after this ....
In article <stefCLz...@netcom.com>, Stef Jones <st...@netcom.com> wrote:
>There is a way that it can be a consensual double standard: if a
>polyamorous person and a monogamous person are partners.
I'm still pondering about what way of life would suit me and those close to
me ....
I feel that I might be happy being poly, but my first brush with my own
polyness hurt two people I care deeply for. This was through my own mistakes,
not anyone else's fault ... and I hope I learnt from this.
I also feel that I could be happy just being with one person, but I don't know
for sure (who ever can ?).
If I end up in an agreed mono relationship, I could again hurt people I care
about. Oddly enough, I don't want that to happen .....
At the moment I am involved with someone I care for a great deal, but with
everything left free, so we are both able to do as we wish (as long as there is
information about what, getting back to the other) but as yet there has been
very little which has happened away from the two of us.
I don't know how happy she is with this arrangement, its very difficult for me
to find out exactly what she really feels about some things, if she is sure
what she is doing is best for me.
[comment about posting reasons]
>Some claim they are poly because they "just are" and they don't want to be
>restricted to a form of relationship which is bad for them. Fine. But when
>they get into a mutually poly relationship and have problems dealing with
>their partner's polyamory, they say something different. They say, "I have
>to learn to deal with this, even if it hurts." And if it turns out that
>they can't deal with it, then they might claim incompatibility or they
>might decide, "Well, I have to be monogamous because I can't deal with my
>partner's polyamory."
In some ways, yes, I'd like a poly relationship (assuming I could find people
I loved to be with) but I still havn't fully accepted the feeling of someone
I'm involved with being poly. I think if/when I come up to it, it will hurt
and I will have to deal with it. If I stay in my current relationship it may
come up sooner than I'd like.
I don't think I have the right (although I have had at least two offers to
that effect - _really_ freaked me out, but a long story) to demand that while
I am being poly, a partner stays mono.
I decided I'm either going to be free to be poly with others who are free to be
poly, or mono with someone who has agreed to be mono. I don't think I can cope
with anything else.
Now I'm at the point where I can choose. Do I be mono, hope I can be happy and
not have to cope with a poly partner, or try being poly, properly, because I
think I could be even happier. The problem of hurting those I care for comes up
again.
>My point is: why is there a difference in the way people think of these
>two situations? Why is it OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a poly
>partner" but less OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a monogamous
>partner"?
I do think differently about the two. In the admittedly somewhat confused state
I am in right now, I'd prefer being poly with a mono partner.
It feels 'easier'. You have the freedom to love as many people as you wish
while you have the security of someone 'committed' to you, and only you.
My own personal 'ethics' can't cope with this. I was brought up to believe that
cheating on a partner was truly horrible (reason my parents got divorced.
Another long story.) and this is possibly the reason it took me so long to come
to terms with the fact that I could be poly at all ..... I know if it is
consensual then you arn't cheating on anyone, but allowed or not the situation
feels the same to me. I'm not totally sure why.
>Suppose a poly person didn't look for poly partners, they looked for mono
>partners who didn't mind their being poly. How do we feel about that? A
>bit squeamish? Why? Why is a consensual double standard not as good as a
>single standard?
[comment removed]
>Why are we uncomfortable with preferences unless they are preferences for
>people who are *similar* to us?
Perhaps because society has ways we "should" and "shouldn't" think ?
Everyone is influenced in some way by the upbringing they had, I kept the
uncomfortable feeling from family definitions of what is "right" and "wrong".
Just my thoughts and feelings, I'd welcome comments by email or post.
(and please forgive the awful spelling ;)
Peter.
(btw, if anyone I know well spots this, care to give me your thoughts ? :)
------
"Pleasure is a sin, and sometimes sinning is a pleasure." -- Byron.
Ken Chaddock
>From: ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stefani Whelan)
>Subject: Re: Mutual polyamory as an ideal (Was: What does "monogamous"
>mean???)
>Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 22:35:27 GMT
>Stef
I think you read my mind on this one Stef. Well said!
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
>my partner cannot adequately maintain two relationships, and still hold up
>his end of the family, then I certainly should be able to say "Not if you
>want to stay part of this family."
I persume then, that if your partner suddenly decided that *you* weren't
upholding (his concept) of *your* obligation to the family that you would
*immediately* drop all your other lovers and revert to a monogamous
lifestyle ?
Or would you reserve the right to decide what your obligation is to the
family and wither or not you are meeting it ?
To avoid a double standard in this area, *YOU* will have to allow your
spouce the right to examine your activities and decide wither *you* can
handle a poly lifestyle, when compared to *HIS* picture of what your
interactions with and obligations to the family are!
>No, but I can ahead of time say "if you do this, I will *not* continue with
>the relationship". Of course I cannot force anyone to do, or not do
>something, I can however, say that I will not continue *my* end of it, if they
>choose to do certain things. This is my right, just as it is theirs.
In other words, there's no equality here, your rules are *THE* rules. And
of course, if you decide that you don't have to live to the same rules, well
then "if you don't like it, I will *not* continue with the relationship" ?
Am I just overly sensitive here or does this seem like blackmail or
coersion ?
>I have the right to say "If you act this way, I will *not* continue the
>current relationship with you." This is all we can ever do. It takes two (at
>least) to make a relationship, and if I do something that my partner feels is
>completely detrimental to the relationship, it's his *right* to say so, and to
>make his requirements for continuing the relationship known. It's up to me to
>choose which I value more, the relationship, or the other thing, no matter
>what it is.
This is true, you have a right to say it, but that doesn't make
it right !
If you are deciding what is acceptable in your relationship, based upon
what *you* want from the relationship, what is good for *you*, then are you
really in a caring, sharing equal partnership at all, isn't it a selfish,
self centered personal gratification exercise ?
If you take the arrogrant attitude that *I know what is best for this
relationship, and if you don't behave exactly as I tell you, "I will *not*
continue with the relationship"*, don't you think that this is an attitude
of dominance and control more than anything else? Aren't you using your
partner's emotional investment as a lever to get your own way ?
Any time that someone holds another to a standard (be it behaviour,
performance or anything else) that is different than that to which they hold
themselves, this is a *DOUBLE* standard.
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO !
Our society has long held the belief that double standards are *WRONG*
regardless of the standard or the reason for it, personally, I agree with
that judgement.
>Even with my kids, (where the government has 'given' (ha! what a laugh!) me
>the power to decide these things for them), the *only* thing I can really do
>is say "These are the rules if you want to live here, if you choose to do
><this thing> you will no longer live here."
"Tough love" only seems works in about 25% of the cases. Aren't there
better ways to solve these issues than "Do as I say or get out" ?
>If (given these hypothetical situations of a partner who's always been, and
>has
>professed to be a one-love-at-a-time person) does find a new love, then my
>'requirement' still works. It's up to them to choose what's best for
>themselves - I never said any different. I however still have the right to
>choose what ever kind of partner *I* want, just as they do. If they change in
>such as way as they no longer fit my description of what I want from a
>partner, is it wrong to terminate the relationship?
People change, are you saying that you are unwilling or unable to
accomidate other people's changing needs and wants, even when that other
person is someone you *supposedly* love ?
What if your spouce became disabled and could no longer "hold up his end
of the family" (as defined by you of course), will you dump him ? And OH
YES, it is the same thing!
>Granted, a poly person might make their life harder by only wanting monogamus
>loving and poly tolerating lovers, I don't however, find it hypocritical, only
>possibly self-defeating.
It's more a desire to "have your cake and eat it to", have a nice stable,
safe, secure relationship, without the internal fortitude of being able to
live with the same uncertainty you may be causing your spouce.
I find it to be a double standard, and think it should be just as socially
unacceptable as any other double standard!
...Ken
Ryk
[quoting Carol on poly with mono (without attribution)]
[vehement argument and accusations of selfishness deleted]
> Our society has long held the belief that double standards are *WRONG*
>regardless of the standard or the reason for it, personally, I agree with
>that judgement.
In fact Ken, our society has long believed in the validity of a variety of
double standards, and a large portion of our society still feels that
those standards have some validity. Take a look at many people's behaviour
and you will see that the "Men need to sow their wild oats, women should
be faithful and virginal" double standard is alive and kicking. You and I
and most everyone _here_ thinks that double standard is *WRONG*, but it's
still out there.
[snip]
> I find it to be a double standard, and think it should be just as socially
>unacceptable as any other double standard!
>
>
>...Ken
I think that within every individual relationship you will find
differences between what partners expect of each other. In good
relationships these differences will be negotiated based on the strengths
and weaknesses, wants and desires of the partners involved, and every
relationship will be different.
For me, anybody, including you Ken, who walks up from outside and tries to
tell people in a relationship that their particular arrangements (mutually
agreed upon) are socially unacceptable is being incredibly rude.
Try phrasing it as "I respect you and your needs, while you respect me and
my needs" and it's not a double standard at all, even if those needs
happen to be different.
--
Ryk........Email: r...@weber.me.queensu.ca
Martin Schafer
I'm sorry, but no. If we are talking about a 16+ year old teenager, then
sure. If they are insistent enough, they can wind up with complete
control of their lives, but even then that is a final ultimate drastic
result.
Except for cases of mental illness, there is no such thing as a nine
year old who can't be controlled if the parents are within a couple
of standard deviations of the norm in mental and physical ability.
You structure rewards and punishments, and apply them. If the child
is physically abusive, you control them physically. That doesn't
mean beating them, it means holding them so they can't hurt you or
anything else until they calm down.
I have a nephew ex-outlaw with tourette's. He is extremely difficult
to deal with, and his mother gets some help from social service
agencies. He doesn't need to be sent somewhere til he "realizes that
his actions have consequences." When he is in control he does realize
that, and he fights to control his impulses to hit and kick, but he
can't always. You destract him, you take him out of the room, you
hold him until he has control again, you make him apologize. It's
a lot of work, but it is doable.
Curious Of All Natures
> Recently, some events happened which made me examine myself in terms
>of my own definition. A love stood me up to be with another love and I
>flew off the handle, I cried, I stormed... all over, not a pretty
>sight. I was pretty ashamed of myself but was unable to dispel my
>feelings of hurt.
>
> Two weeks later, it happened again with a different amor. Didn't
>bother me in the least... So I sat down and examined both cases to find
>the differences which I assumed must exist. I discovered that the first
>incident had occurred without even so much as a "sorry but..." whereas
>the second began with "Sorry" and tried to make amends and reschedule
>according to _my_ schedule.
Ellen, this is great. Great great great! I say this both in
appreciation of your self-scrutiny and in agreement with how much the
latter kind of being-stood-up can make a difference.
Some people make commitments that are really grounded in a sense of what
they think they'll want to do later ("commitents" being from marriage on
down to just meeting somewhere). Such commitments are easy to make and
require no great effort to follow though - unless they find themselves
wanting otherwise when push comes to shove. In my experience, this will
pretty much undermine a person's investment in the commitment - if
it was grounded in this way.
Real commitment, in my book, is commitment that is still palpably there
even when the committee (*cough*, ahem. er, the giver-of-promise) can't
follow through, or doesn't want to. They go out of their way to make
things right for the one who was counting on them, without bargaining
for forgiveness.
Taking responsibility like this can be a chore if you really screwed up,
which is why people who make real commitments will put a lot more energy
into keeping them than would be called for by just what they would want
to do anyway.
I'm not making myself as clear as I'd like because I haven't said what I
think "real" commitments *are* grounded on. Hmm . . . I'd say it varies.
It'd be something closer to the core of a person, something more robust
than current desires and the path of least resistance. Personal
integrity, a sense of duty, love - these seem like they could provide
the right foundation.
(Do you have a similar sense of "love" to mine? Stick your sense into
the role of solidly grounding commitments and see if it holds up.)
-Matt Ryan, always watching for his spiritual family,
mb...@midway.uchicago.edu Curious Of All Natures
================================== ====================================
If I'm dreaming, never let me wake. You'll never see the end of the road
If I'm awake, never let me sleep. When you're traveling with me.
-old chinese fellow -Crowded House
================================== ====================================
Curious Of All Natures
I think the position you disagree with is not one she upholds.
I do not, of course, speak for her, but I believe she and I share an idea here.
By the way, I speak in a different voice toward the end, so anyone please
read all the way through before responding.
Ken Chaddock writes:
>Carol A. Suelzle writes:
>>Exactly, and if I have a *vested interest* in my family, and I know that
>>my partner cannot adequately maintain two relationships, and still hold up
>>his end of the family, then I certainly should be able to say "Not if you
>>want to stay part of this family."
>
> I persume then, that if your partner suddenly decided that *you* weren't
>upholding (his concept) of *your* obligation to the family that you would
>*immediately* drop all your other lovers and revert to a monogamous
>lifestyle ?
What Carol says she "certainly should be able to say" does not require
an immediate curtailing of the objected-to behavior. Her partner could
decide to leave. Her partner could decide to investigate his own
dispositions with her to see what they discover (she might be reassured
and no longer need to make the demand, he might find he can't handle it
after all, etc.) It's up to him, it's his life. He needs to know the
boundaries of the person he's sharing it with.
You react as if Carol advocates giving people orders, but she doesn't.
> To avoid a double standard in this area, *YOU* will have to allow your
>spouce the right to examine your activities and decide wither *you* can
>handle a poly lifestyle, when compared to *HIS* picture of what your
>interactions with and obligations to the family are!
You flourish this as if this were a terrible thing to swallow, but it's
not! A partner of mine chooses to be with me based on their own
judgment of my character. They have every right to decide what they
will accept from me based on this judgment. If what they will not
accept is something important to me, then this is a call for serious
discussion and judgment-exploring, as the relationship can't persist on
those grounds.
>>No, but I can ahead of time say "if you do this, I will *not* continue with
>>the relationship". Of course I cannot force anyone to do, or not do
>>something, I can however, say that I will not continue *my* end of it,
>>if they choose to do certain things. This is my right, just as it is theirs.
>
> In other words, there's no equality here, your rules are *THE* rules. And
>of course, if you decide that you don't have to live to the same rules, well
>then "if you don't like it, I will *not* continue with the relationship" ?
No equality??? Partners rules are *THE* rules too. If incompatable
rules, then no relationship on those terms, yup.
Part of the problem here is the word "rules". "Limits" is more
appropriate. You could choose to call them rules, but that word brings
to mind specific things that one must do, and that is not what's at
issue. "Limits" brings to mind genuine personal boundaries, a sense that
too much whatever would make the relationship not worth it.
> Am I just overly sensitive here or does this seem like blackmail or
>coersion ?
The same way of speaking could easily be used for blackmail, but that
doesn't make all instances of it blackmail. Here's what I think is the
difference:
When you tell a partner of a limit, the "I'll leave otherwise" kind, it
damn well better be something that you've *discovered* inside yourself.
Something that will really make you miserable and bent-up if pushed too
far. When you discover something like this, it's important to let
partner know, isn't it? If it's more of a preference, and you're
looking for the strongest language to frame it in so that you get your
way, then that's blackmail.
Of course, declared limits are declared limits, whether they're genuine
or coercive. You can always bail.
(The existence of people who can't bail, to whom saying "I'll leave
otherwise" *constitutes* coercion, throws a wrench into my argument. I
personally don't recommend pursuing relationships with people like
this.)
> If you are deciding what is acceptable in your relationship, based upon
>what *you* want from the relationship, what is good for *you*, then are you
>really in a caring, sharing equal partnership at all, isn't it a selfish,
>self centered personal gratification exercise ?
Not necessarily. There is a minimum that must be met for the
relationship to exist. It is important to make facets of this known.
If that minimum were so high that a person was spending all their energy
getting it met, then it would be as you say. On the other hand, having
discovered that there was not a lot that another person could do that
would *really* hurt, the minimum might be easily met by both and leave
lots of roon to spare for flexing to eachothers' needs and desires.
I'm going to refrain from replying through the whole post - the point of
division seems to be that you're interpreting this as writing the law
for other people, when it's meant as writing the law for what and how
much can come into one's own life. Double-standards suck when it's a
matter of right and wrong (eg demanding honesty but lying oneself), but
they're not necesarily terrible when they're value-neutral and person-
specific. (eg "I enjoy having multiple lovers, but I won't go out with
anyone who would want the same in their life - any takers?")
However, Ken, I do agree with what you said earlier - "Consentual" double
standards can be fine; now-that-you're-here-I'm-gonna-declare-this-double-
standard sucks no matter what.
...
Yaknow, it occurs to me that what Carol said at the very top, promising
to bail out if her partner opens another relationship (given her
judgment of what would happen to her particular relationship with him)...
comes under the heading of what I just said sucks no matter what.
. . . Reading back through, I still hold with everything else I've said -
it would not be giving him an order and I would not consider it
blackmail (as long as her judgment was extremely self-critical yet still
clear), but nonetheless I don't think it'd be good. I would say to her,
"Tell him what you think will happen to your relationship if he does it,
and leave if you find that you can't bear what ends up happening."
ie, phrase it *and live by it* in terms of a self-limit and don't export
it to a specific action in his life, even if you think the one would
break the other.
In my book everyone has the *right* to say even things like "if you do
this in your life I'll bail out." But don't think it's *good* to take
that particular slant.
Finally, I must say...
> What if your spouce became disabled and could no longer "hold up his end
>of the family" (as defined by you of course), will you dump him ? And OH
>YES, it is the same thing!
I think for a moment here Ken forgot what group this was!
-Matt Ryan, still struggling to verbalize the real difference between
in-your-life and in-my-life,
Louise C Mallory
the word 'blackmail' was used. Since we regularly tackle so many other
emotionally-loaded words (love, honesty, too-young, casual-sex...), I wondered
why we hadn't had a go at this one lately.
In a previous situation, I was accused of emotional blackmail. At the time, I
was convinced that I was being rational and honest, and that no manipulation
was intended. (That I wasn't trying to change his behaviour, just to answer
his question about what the consequences would be.) But now I'm not so sure.
I was involved with this person. (And, quite separately, with another person
too, but he doesn't come into the story, except that both these people knew
about each other.) A woman whom I didn't like became interested in this guy.
He asked me "What if K gets to be my girlfriend? What about us?" I said
that I would still like to spend time with him, would still be interested
in having sex with him if it wasn't a problem for them, but that I didn't
really enjoy spending time with her, so I probably wouldn't hang out with
both of them together. He said that was blackmail. He said that she
wouldn't understand him spending private time with me, instead of hanging out
all three of us. I said Hang on, doesn't she know that we're having sex now?
He said God no, I can't tell her that! I said You think I'd keep having sex
with you if you had a girlfriend who didn't know about it? He said Oh, now
you're really blackmailing me, this is really unfair.
So where does integrity stop and manipulation begin?
Louise
Jim Baranski
If you are deciding what is acceptable in your relationship, based upon what
*you* want from the relationship, what is good for *you*, then are you
really in a caring, sharing equal partnership at all, isn't it a selfish,
self centered personal gratification exercise ?
Every successfull relationship must follow the "rules" of all the participants.
Not just hers, but his too. They have to come to some agreement, or any
relationship is stillborn, or vampire-ish.
Everyone looks for people to form relationships with who will fullfill their
needs. It would be suicidal to be in relationships with people who are
unfillfilling. We must all look for the people who 'fit' us, and vice versa.
The question is, once you are in a relationship, is it acceptable to say 'If
you do (or do not do) XYZ, then I am leaving you!' I feel that these types of
'manditory requirements' should come out very early in a relationship, so that
people can make decisions up front, before they have a lot invested in a
relationship. To do otherwise is manipulatory.
Of course, people do change, and occasionally grow apart, but more often then
not, some sort of compromise is possible so that everyone's needs are met.
Any time that someone holds another to a standard (be it behaviour,
performance or anything else) that is different than that to which they hold
themselves, this is a *DOUBLE* standard.
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO !
Our society has long held the belief that double standards are *WRONG*
regardless of the standard or the reason for it, personally, I agree with
that judgement.
I would agree with you, if the double standard is an enforced one. If it is a
choosen one, who are you to say it is bad *for them*? If it is an enforced
double standard, then, yes I would say it is hypocritical.
People change, are you saying that you are unwilling or unable to accomidate
other people's changing needs and wants, even when that other person is
someone you *supposedly* love ?
Some changes can be accomodated, some can't. I have a real hard time making
any kind of blanket judgements on this sort of thing.
What if your spouce became disabled and could no longer "hold up his end of
the family" (as defined by you of course), will you dump him ? And OH YES,
it is the same thing!
Good question. Still it depends on the details of the situation. It's an act
of love to stay with an invalid spice. But is it required, to the point that
if you don't, you are a terrible person? To do so for simple monetary reasons
seems pretty shallow, but what if the spice was malingering, and wouldn't even
do what they could, and make the most of their opportunities? I might get
tired of that eventually...
Jim.
Cappy Harrison
lmal...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Louise C Mallory) wrote:
> In a previous situation, I was accused of emotional blackmail. At the time, I
> was convinced that I was being rational and honest, and that no manipulation
> was intended. (That I wasn't trying to change his behaviour, just to answer
> his question about what the consequences would be.) But now I'm not so sure.
After reading the rest of your posting, it sounds to me like you can be
more certain!
> I was involved with this person. (And, quite separately, with another person
> too, but he doesn't come into the story, except that both these people knew
> about each other.) A woman whom I didn't like became interested in this guy.
> He asked me "What if K gets to be my girlfriend? What about us?" I said
> that I would still like to spend time with him, would still be interested
> in having sex with him if it wasn't a problem for them, but that I didn't
> really enjoy spending time with her, so I probably wouldn't hang out with
> both of them together. He said that was blackmail.
That doesn't sound like blackmail to me!! You have the right to not spend
time with someone that you don't enjoy spending time with, even if that
person is having sex with your lover!
> He said that she
> wouldn't understand him spending private time with me, instead of hanging out
> all three of us. I said Hang on, doesn't she know that we're having sex now?
> He said God no, I can't tell her that! I said You think I'd keep having sex
> with you if you had a girlfriend who didn't know about it? He said Oh, now
> you're really blackmailing me, this is really unfair.
No, he was the one being really unfair. It is a reasonable condition for
you to expect him to be honest with his other lovers about your
relationship. You should be able to state this need of yours without being
accused of blackmail. Is it blackmail if I tell a lover "If you ever hit
me, I will leave you"? Is it blackmail to say "I can't be in a
relationship where I'm lied to"? How is it blackmail for you to say "I
need our relationship to not be hidden. I refuse to be in the position of
"the other woman," where our relationship is kept in the closet, something
to be ashamed of"? I completely support what you said to him.
This all sounds so familiar to me! I was in a very similar situation about
two years ago. At the time I didn't know myself and my needs well enough
to be able to state that I needed my relationships to be open & honest.
This includes being open & up front with other people about our
relationship as well. I was having sex with this guy who, for his own
reasons, wasn't comfortable letting other people know about "us." I, on
the other hand, told quite a few of my friends. The problem was that our
friends overlapped! So I was put in the postion of having to decide
between his need for secrecy and my need for support. It got to be a
really bad situation. He and I were good friends, and we did a lot of
stuff together. I remember him talking to another friend of his who we
were hanging out with, and saying something like he really wanted to find a
lover, when he and I had been having sex for quite some time! I felt
really dissed, disrespected, ashamed, angry, confused, etc., etc.
I probably should have gotten out of the relationship right then & there.
I eventually did, but I still felt obligated to maintain the close
friendship we had had, and I still felt like I needed his approval. This
is what led me to seek out a therapist, and I found an awesome one! A bi,
nonmonagamous woman who supports my poly life & my bi-ness.
Louise asks: > So where does integrity stop and manipulation begin?
It's a hard distinction to make, but I'll take a stab at it:
Integrity, as I see it, is being able to state your limits and following
through with them, i.e., if you say "I will not be in a relationship with
someone who does X,Y, and Z." if that person DOES X,Y, and Z, you need to
have enough self-love to not be in that relationship anymore. Too many of
us (esp. us women) make excuses for our partners. We say, "Well, he/she
was angry, he/she couldn't help themselves, he/she said they'd never do it
again," and we believe them, because we don't value ourselves enough. We
are afraid that without the relationship we're not worth enough.
Manipulation, as I see it, is saying things like "If you loved me, you'd do
such-and-such." Manipulation is expecting/demanding that someone else be
responsible for your feelings, instead of taking responsibility for them
yourself. Manipulation is stating your limits, following through on them,
but then accusing the other person and saying "You made me leave you!"
Well, no, they didn't make you leave them. You chose to leave because your
limits were not respected. ("You" in the general sense, not YOU, Louise :)
)
Can anyone understand what I'm saying here? Is the distinction clear?
Cappy Harrison, who should probably introduce herself soon to you all,
since she's been browsing through postings off-and-on recently! :^)
sonny hays-eberts
lmal...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Louise C Mallory) wrote:
[snip-o-rama]
> In a previous situation, I was accused of emotional blackmail. At the time, I
> was convinced that I was being rational and honest, and that no manipulation
> was intended. (That I wasn't trying to change his behaviour, just to answer
> his question about what the consequences would be.) But now I'm not so sure.
>
> I was involved with this person. (And, quite separately, with another person
> too, but he doesn't come into the story, except that both these people knew
> about each other.) A woman whom I didn't like became interested in this guy.
> He asked me "What if K gets to be my girlfriend? What about us?" I said
> that I would still like to spend time with him, would still be interested
> in having sex with him if it wasn't a problem for them, but that I didn't
> really enjoy spending time with her, so I probably wouldn't hang out with
> both of them together. He said that was blackmail.
why? as far as i can see, you stated your position, clearly. he was then
faced with a choice. you were not exerting pressure on him to make a
particular choice. you simply explained how you would react to his choices.
he was free to make his decision, aware of the consequences. becuase he
might lose what he wants as a result of his choices is simply a fact of
life.
blackmail - the extortion of money or something of value from a person by
the threat of exposure of something criminal.
you did not threaten to expose anything. i fail to see why this could be
considered blackmail. his categorization of it as such is emotional
manipulation, imnsho.
> He said that she
> wouldn't understand him spending private time with me, instead of hanging out
> all three of us. I said Hang on, doesn't she know that we're having sex now?
> He said God no, I can't tell her that! I said You think I'd keep having sex
> with you if you had a girlfriend who didn't know about it? He said Oh, now
> you're really blackmailing me, this is really unfair.
sounds like this guy wants to have his cake and eat it too. with all due
respect, it doesn't sound like the type of person i'd like to expend my
efforts on. your request for him to be honest could not be considered
blackmail either. you are not pressuring him to reveal this, near as i can
tell, but stating that you do not find this situation desirable. he has
choices - be honest with everyone and (possibly, depending on his
girlfriend's reaction) keep you around, or not. by the telling of this
story, it seems like it is all his decision to make.
> So where does integrity stop and manipulation begin?
integrity is clearly stating what you want/feel/need. manipulation is
trying to coerce your partner(s) into making the choices you want. simply
presenting them with options and respecting thier choice doesn't strike me
as manipulation. even if those choices involve loss. if you do not exert
effort on the other persons decision making process, can it be
manipulation? unless someone can offer a pretty good reason in opposition,
*i* think not.
--
"love is a banquet, on which we feed."
-patti smith
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@donald.uoregon.edu
Jim Baranski
In the ongoing discussion of alternatives to mutual (or symmetrical) polyamory,
the word 'blackmail' was used. Since we regularly tackle so many other
emotionally-loaded words (love, honesty, too-young, casual-sex...), I wondered
why we hadn't had a go at this one lately.
Oooooh! Louise has balls! (or something ;-}) Go for the tough topics, eh?
In a previous situation, I was accused of emotional blackmail. At the time, I
was convinced that I was being rational and honest, and that no manipulation
was intended. (That I wasn't trying to change his behaviour, just to answer
his question about what the consequences would be.) But now I'm not so sure.
Ah, Ha! Oh, this is just self-defence! I'm so.... disappointed!
Enough sillyness....
I was involved with this person. (And, quite separately, with another person
too, but he doesn't come into the story, except that both these people knew
about each other.) A woman whom I didn't like became interested in this guy.
He asked me "What if K gets to be my girlfriend? What about us?" I said
that I would still like to spend time with him, would still be interested in
having sex with him if it wasn't a problem for them, but that I didn't really
enjoy spending time with her, so I probably wouldn't hang out with both of
them together. He said that was blackmail.
Nope, you are simply stating your preferance. You are not requiring him to do
anything... Except you are saying how that relationship would affect your
relationship.
He said that she wouldn't
understand him spending private time with me, instead of hanging out all
three of us. I said Hang on, doesn't she know that we're having sex now? He
said God no, I can't tell her that! I said You think I'd keep having sex
with you if you had a girlfriend who didn't know about it? He said Oh, now
you're really blackmailing me, this is really unfair.
This is plain dis-honest. It's not a question of blackmail at all...
So where does integrity stop and manipulation begin?
Well, one good clue for me, is that blackmail generally involves keeping, or
wanting to keep something secret, and saying 'do X, or I'll tell!'.
Manipulation is when you subtlely keep secrets to manipulate someone else's
perception of a situation is different then what it really is. Of course no
one sees the same things the same way, so what may seem like manipulation to
one person, may not be to another person.
Integrity is being yourself, and allowing other people to be themselves...
Whatever that means...
Jim
Louise
Carol A. Suelzle
> These are restrictions based upon the ability to adequately perform some
>activity in which the rest of the group has some vested interest, it only
>becomes a double standard or hypocrisy if, for example, a member of the
>choir, who *can't hold a tune in a bucket themself* restricts someone else *
>FOR THAT SAME REASON*.
Exactly, and if I have a *vested interest* in my family, and I know that my
partner cannot adequately maintain two relationships, and still hold up his
end of the family, then I certainly should be able to say "Not if you want to
stay part of this family."
> But is it your right to tell them they *CAN"T* and do you think this will
>any reasonable chance of preventing them from meeting that special someone ?
>The divorce rates seem to argue otherwise!
No, but I can ahead of time say "if you do this, I will *not* continue with
the relationship". Of course I cannot force anyone to do, or not do
something, I can however, say that I will not continue *my* end of it, if they
choose to do certain things. This is my right, just as it is theirs.
>>Polyamory is not for everyone. Network management is not for everyone. Race
>>car driving is not for everyone. Parenthood is not for everyone. Marriage
>>isn't for everyone. It is not hypocrisy to believe that something that is
>>right for one's self isn't right for everyone.
> True, however, we're into those special areas where you're saying that
>you have the right to make decisions and determinations for other people.
I have the right to say "If you act this way, I will *not* continue the
current relationship with you." This is all we can ever do. It takes two (at
least) to make a relationship, and if I do something that my partner feels is
completely detrimental to the relationship, it's his *right* to say so, and to
make his requirements for continuing the relationship known. It's up to me to
choose which I value more, the relationship, or the other thing, no matter
what it is.
>This may be acceptable when the other person is somehow impared or
>immature and your judgement is *really* in the best interests of the other
>person.
Even with my kids, (where the government has 'given' (ha! what a laugh!) me
the power to decide these things for them), the *only* thing I can really do
is say "These are the rules if you want to live here, if you choose to do
<this thing> you will no longer live here."
>But when *you* have a vested interest in the decision, how can you (
>or anyone else) be sure the decision is made in the best interest of the
>other person ? Who says that that other (new) love you've talked about
>above, isn't the best thing for your partner ? It's not up to you to make
>that determination!
If (given these hypothetical situations of a partner who's always been, and has
professed to be a one-love-at-a-time person) does find a new love, then my
'requirement' still works. It's up to them to choose what's best for
themselves - I never said any different. I however still have the right to
choose what ever kind of partner *I* want, just as they do. If they change in
such as way as they no longer fit my description of what I want from a
partner, is it wrong to terminate the relationship?
Granted, a poly person might make their life harder by only wanting monogamus
loving and poly tolerating lovers, I don't however, find it hypocritical, only
possibly self-defeating.
Carol
Mark Evans
: Some claim they are poly because they "just are" and they don't want to be
: restricted to a form of relationship which is bad for them. Fine. But when
: they get into a mutually poly relationship and have problems dealing with
: their partner's polyamory, they say something different. They say, "I have
: to learn to deal with this, even if it hurts." And if it turns out that
: they can't deal with it, then they might claim incompatibility or they
: might decide, "Well, I have to be monogamous because I can't deal with my
: partner's polyamory."
This appears similar to the situation of 'friends of friends' who may not
be friends of yours.
: My point is: why is there a difference in the way people think of these
: two situations? Why is it OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a poly
: partner" but less OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a monogamous
: partner"?
: Suppose a poly person didn't look for poly partners, they looked for mono
: partners who didn't mind their being poly. How do we feel about that? A
: bit squeamish? Why? Why is a consensual double standard not as good as a
: single standard?
: Isn't it somewhat more acceptable for a gay person to prefer another gay
: person as a partner than to prefer a bi person? Isn't it OK for a white
: person to prefer a white person as a partner, but a little less OK for a
: white person to prefer a black person?
: Why are we uncomfortable with preferences unless they are preferences for
: people who are *similar* to us?
It also depends on what differences you see as most importent.
e.g. a person might be looking for partners with similar views on
realtionships and judge their physical appearence to be of far less
importence than that.
rit...@phantom.ma30.bull.com
[snip]
|>
|> In a previous situation, I was accused of emotional blackmail. At the time, I
|> was convinced that I was being rational and honest, and that no manipulation
|> was intended. (That I wasn't trying to change his behaviour, just to answer
|> his question about what the consequences would be.) But now I'm not so sure.
|>
|> I was involved with this person. (And, quite separately, with another person
|> too, but he doesn't come into the story, except that both these people knew
|> about each other.) A woman whom I didn't like became interested in this guy.
|> He asked me "What if K gets to be my girlfriend? What about us?" I said
|> that I would still like to spend time with him, would still be interested
|> in having sex with him if it wasn't a problem for them, but that I didn't
|> really enjoy spending time with her, so I probably wouldn't hang out with
|> both of them together. He said that was blackmail. He said that she
|> wouldn't understand him spending private time with me, instead of hanging out
|> all three of us. I said Hang on, doesn't she know that we're having sex now?
|> He said God no, I can't tell her that! I said You think I'd keep having sex
|> with you if you had a girlfriend who didn't know about it? He said Oh, now
|> you're really blackmailing me, this is really unfair.
|>
|> So where does integrity stop and manipulation begin?
Well, the quick answer is that you were showing integrity and he was being
manipulative. As you describe it, it sounds very much like he was trying to
manipulate you into an arrangement that you wouldn't be comfortable with
(and trying to conceal it from the other person, at that). You sound like
you were telling him honestly how you felt and what your reactions would
be to the hypothetical situations he was describing. Just because someone
accuses you of emotional blackmail doesn't mean that you are, or that he
isn't!
--
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ri...@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet! - MPFC NH CAP: Profile 49
avi pfeffer
blackmail">
I agree with everyone else that this is absolutely not blackmail.
Still, I'm curious why he used that term. Did he really feel as if he
was being blackmailed? I think I understand how that might happen.
Blackmail is generally threatening to reveal something a person
doesn't want to be revealed. In this case you were forcing him to
confront issues that he was uncomfortable with, essentially not
allowing him to ignore what he was trying to ignore, i.e. his
difficulty with being involved with both of you at the same time.
(BLATANT ASSUMPTION ALERT - I don't know this guy).
Blackmail feels like being trapped with no easy way out. So does
being forced to confront difficult issues. I know that one, because I
used to spend a lot of time in denial. (Probably still do, but I'll
deny it.) But in my own experience, if an issue caused me pain when I
had to face it, tackling it was always the best thing in the long run.
So I'd say that in the end you were doing him a favor by being honest.
That's what integrity is about.
avi
Michael Vickery
a love who dumped her without a word, then being confused by another love who
moved on in a more thoughtful and sensitive manner. Thus, I was amazed when
Mr/Ms Curious reposted part of the text in hir response, as the issue is one
which is very close to my heart nowdays. A few months back I developed a
surprisingly quick and powerful attachment to someone who professed the same
for me. This relationship ended rather suddenly and painfully under
circumstances I still don't understand. All I know is that she suddenly
pointed out to me that "I'd changed" and then listed a few things she was
uncomfortable with. I did not then realize or understand that she was
severing her bond with me, and blindly pursued what I thought to be a
common desire to be together. The month ended very badly, with me leaving
the city close to tears, and her continuing with her new boyfriend.
What astonished and horrified me the most of the entire affair was the
rage of jealousy which flared up in me. This had never happened before,
and I pray fervently it never will. I am, for the most part, as carefully
NOT jealous of the people in my life as anyone I know. I mistakenly prided
myself in it. However, I was suddenly (and bluntly) given proof that there
was to be no future between this woman and myself, as she was instead going
to devote herself to her new boyfriend. All I remember is throwing a book
against a wall violently, grabbing my coat and leaving the apartment for
many hours. I left the city within a week after.
Ellen's words were a comfort to me, because they made sense of something
that had bugged me ever since then. *Why* did I react that way? I've lost
loves before, and some of them under very painful situations. But I never
once reacted even slightly jealous. I can now guess that the reason is
because I wasn't prepared for it. She made no direct attempt to soften the
blow, and I was too blinded by love and desire to pick up on her hints. We
had no chance to sit down and calmly talk about what had changed (except
that I had somehow mysteriously changed my behavior, which I attribute more
to her perceptions and desires than any actual change in me), we simply
danced and skirted the issue until we both got hurt enough for me to leave.
I have always been able to learn something from everyone I know, even if
it takes me a while to puzzle out the problem. Thanks to Ellen, I've managed
to sort out some of the pieces of this one. Thank you very much, my dear.
Michael R. Vickery
--
There is a theory which states that if anyone discovers exactly what the
Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be
replaced with something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened. - Douglas Adams
Ken Chaddock
>>post. There's a difference between a "consentual" double standard and one
>>which is imposed upon you. The origional post talked about people who wanted
>>to have multiple lovers/sex partners but didn't want their lovers to have
>>other partners.
>My point is: why is there a difference in the way people think of these
>two situations? Why is it OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a poly
>partner" but less OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a monogamous
>partner"?
>Suppose a poly person didn't look for poly partners, they looked for mono
>partners who didn't mind their being poly. How do we feel about that? A
>bit squeamish? Why? Why is a consensual double standard not as good as a
>single standard?
>Isn't it somewhat more acceptable for a gay person to prefer another gay
>person as a partner than to prefer a bi person? Isn't it OK for a white
>person to prefer a white person as a partner, but a little less OK for a
>white person to prefer a black person?
>Why are we uncomfortable with preferences unless they are preferences for
>people who are *similar* to us?
I still think you are missing the point. If you are a poly person. prefer
mono partners and can find them, good for you.
Just one question for you:
You are poly and have several lovers, all of whom are mono,
One of these lovers has an intimate encounted with another partner,
Did this person "cheat" on you ?
...Ken
Mark Evans
: I was involved with this person. (And, quite separately, with another person
: too, but he doesn't come into the story, except that both these people knew
: about each other.) A woman whom I didn't like became interested in this guy.
: He asked me "What if K gets to be my girlfriend? What about us?" I said
: that I would still like to spend time with him, would still be interested
: in having sex with him if it wasn't a problem for them, but that I didn't
: really enjoy spending time with her, so I probably wouldn't hang out with
: both of them together. He said that was blackmail. He said that she
: wouldn't understand him spending private time with me, instead of hanging out
: all three of us. I said Hang on, doesn't she know that we're having sex now?
: He said God no, I can't tell her that! I said You think I'd keep having sex
: with you if you had a girlfriend who didn't know about it? He said Oh, now
: you're really blackmailing me, this is really unfair.
: So where does integrity stop and manipulation begin?
Reading this it sounds like it is you are the one who is being manipulated.
Mark Evans
: Well, the quick answer is that you were showing integrity and he was being
: manipulative. As you describe it, it sounds very much like he was trying to
: manipulate you into an arrangement that you wouldn't be comfortable with
: (and trying to conceal it from the other person, at that). You sound like
Or possibly he was trying to manipulate Louise into breaking up the relationship
with him. It is difficult to tell without knowing more details both of the
people AND their personalities.
: you were telling him honestly how you felt and what your reactions would
: be to the hypothetical situations he was describing. Just because someone
: accuses you of emotional blackmail doesn't mean that you are, or that he
: isn't!
One thing I have noticed is that many people appear only able to handle ending
a relationship if they can attach blame to the other partner.
Edward J OConnell
What was strange for me--this coming out experience, really, was to see a
woman that I loved hold and kiss someone she loved, and NOT feel jealous--
because I was secure that she had real feelings for me that weren't negated by,
neutralized by, her holding and kissing another. A perfect moment.
Watching her with him I felt warm, and good, and I knew that I could
handle poly, I knew I was...mature? no, that's too judgemental...I
knew I was poly enough for poly, I guess...
It came and went. It let me know, though, that perhas I wasn't just a hypocrit
because, though I'll accept anything between consenting partners, the idea of
one person being poly and expecting their lovers to be monogamous with them is
really, really ugly to me. Ugly, especially, as I could see how that would be
a desirable state for me! At that point, you have to wonder if you have
polyamory or a personality cult.
Reminds me of this time, when I was technically schizophrenic (shades of
monty python--but I got better! :-) Really!) and had lots of interesting
beliefs about my place in the universe--ok, I was pretty sure that I was
some sort of god--and I had lots of friends that Iwas hanging out with, who
would play with this stuff with me, and I actually got a few folks to kind of
believe in this rant I was on.
Eyes glazed. Two women, one man.
A non-hypnotized housemate more or less kicked everybody out before we got
into my bed, I didn't forgive her until I was better, years later...
So for me, polyamory is ever so faintly tainted with my year of
schizophrenia, I had this code for it--pantheon. Basic stranger in a
strange land, with a few modifications. We were gods, nothing was
denied us...
I got so sick I was hospitalized, never got the pantheon together.
Sigh. It became just another reason to be leary of this side of me. It
felt...pathological, just because of these associations...
Rambling. I feel silly posting here, a bit, because I don't get to
practice polyamory, though I know my soul is polyamorous. And lately,
it's like this love in me shines out on people, even though its not
sexual, it is a kind of poly, sorta. I've got lots of friends that
love me. We just dont fuck. Though lately, I must admit, I'm hugging
people more. :-)
My sexual monogamy chafes, but life is sad, sometimes. And I'm happy and
sad always, both at once.
Jay
who trashed his sig today
Oh, if you wanna read a little vignette of mine, a poly character in a
familiar situation, read my story Good Posture on rec.arts.prose.
Its happy and sad all over the damn place.
Ken Chaddock
Subject: Re: Mutual polyamory as an ideal
>Ken, I think you are Not Getting what Carol is saying.
>I think the position you disagree with is not one she upholds.
>I do not, of course, speak for her, but I believe she and I share an idea
>here.
>By the way, I speak in a different voice toward the end, so anyone please
>read all the way through before responding.
>What Carol says she "certainly should be able to say" does not require
>an immediate curtailing of the objected-to behavior. Her partner could
>decide to leave. Her partner could decide to investigate his own
>dispositions with her to see what they discover (she might be reassured
>and no longer need to make the demand, he might find he can't handle it
>after all, etc.) It's up to him, it's his life. He needs to know the
>boundaries of the person he's sharing it with.
>You react as if Carol advocates giving people orders, but she doesn't.
I guess I just don't interpret it the same way you do Matt.
I have to question *WHY* someone would want to have a personal freedom
(not in the political sense) without being able to tolerate that same
freedom in people around them.
My impression, from reading her posts, is that she wants the (preceived)
safety and security of monogamous relationships but also wants the freedom
to be involved with multiple partners. This implies that she is comfortable
only with partners who are faithful to her while she can do as she pleases.
This seems like a double standard to me.
Now, with all that said, if she can find partners who will go along with
it, more power to her. As I said before, a consentual double standard is not
so much a standard as an agreement. However, that's not how I read her posts.
>You flourish this as if this were a terrible thing to swallow, but it's
>not! A partner of mine chooses to be with me based on their own
>judgment of my character. They have every right to decide what they
>will accept from me based on this judgment. If what they will not
>accept is something important to me, then this is a call for serious
>discussion and judgment-exploring, as the relationship can't persist on
>those grounds.
Discussion implies that there may be some room for compromise and an
altering of positions. I didn't get the impression from Carol's phrasing
that she was willing to consider any modification of her position.
At one point she stated that she took the position that this is how it
is to be and that she would discontinue the relationship if her rules/
guidelines (whatever) weren't followed.
If I've misinterpreted this, I appologize, but I think she will have to
clarify what she ment by a few statements which seemed to belong more to a
role of dominance and control than partnership.
>>No equality??? Partners rules are *THE* rules too. If incompatable
>>rules, then no relationship on those terms, yup.
>>Part of the problem here is the word "rules". "Limits" is more
>>appropriate. You could choose to call them rules, but that word brings
>>to mind specific things that one must do, and that is not what's at
>>issue. "Limits" brings to mind genuine personal boundaries, a sense that
>>too much whatever would make the relationship not worth it.
I don't have a problem with rules or limits which are mutually agreed
upon but when those rules or limits are imposed by emotional blackmail, I
*DO* have a problem.
In the situation we've been discussing, Carol seems (to my mind anyway)
to be saying that she will discontinue a relationship when her partner
exceeds the limits *SHE* has imposed upon the relationship, either to make
her comfortable with it or because she thinks the particular activity
somehow (in her opinion - mind you) exceeds his capacity.
>The same way of speaking could easily be used for blackmail, but that
>doesn't make all instances of it blackmail. Here's what I think is the
>difference:
" A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
>When you tell a partner of a limit, the "I'll leave otherwise" kind, it
>damn well better be something that you've *discovered* inside yourself.
>Something that will really make you miserable and bent-up if pushed too
>far. When you discover something like this, it's important to let
>partner know, isn't it? If it's more of a preference, and you're
>looking for the strongest language to frame it in so that you get your
>way, then that's blackmail.
OK, I agree, but why do you think that it's alright for *YOU* (inpersonal
you-not you specifically) to get bent and twisted because your partner has
another lover even though you don't get bent and twisted when you are with
one of *YOUR* other lovers ?
>Of course, declared limits are declared limits, whether they're genuine
>or coercive. You can always bail.
>(The existence of people who can't bail, to whom saying "I'll leave
>otherwise" *constitutes* coercion, throws a wrench into my argument. I
>personally don't recommend pursuing relationships with people like
>this.)
Sometimes people are sooo much in love with someone, they'll take almost
any abuse just to hang on to the relationship. Doesn't necessarily mean they'
re dependent or otherwise weak hangers on, just hopelessly in love.
>Not necessarily. There is a minimum that must be met for the
>relationship to exist. It is important to make facets of this known.
>If that minimum were so high that a person was spending all their energy
>getting it met, then it would be as you say. On the other hand, having
>discovered that there was not a lot that another person could do that
>would *really* hurt, the minimum might be easily met by both and leave
>lots of roon to spare for flexing to eachothers' needs and desires.
It's just that when the minimum you expect from someone else is greater
than the minimum you expect from yourself
>I'm going to refrain from replying through the whole post - the point of
>division seems to be that you're interpreting this as writing the law
>for other people, when it's meant as writing the law for what and how
>much can come into one's own life. Double-standards suck when it's a
>matter of right and wrong (eg demanding honesty but lying oneself), but
>they're not necesarily terrible when they're value-neutral and person-
>specific. (eg "I enjoy having multiple lovers, but I won't go out with
>anyone who would want the same in their life - any takers?")
I don't think this is value neutral as you do, maybe that's where we
differ.
>Yaknow, it occurs to me that what Carol said at the very top, promising
>to bail out if her partner opens another relationship (given her
>judgment of what would happen to her particular relationship with him)...
>comes under the heading of what I just said sucks no matter what.
>. . . Reading back through, I still hold with everything else I've said -
>it would not be giving him an order and I would not consider it
>blackmail (as long as her judgment was extremely self-critical yet still
>clear), but nonetheless I don't think it'd be good. I would say to her,
>"Tell him what you think will happen to your relationship if he does it,
>and leave if you find that you can't bear what ends up happening."
Again, the impersonal *you*.
I think it's just plain selfish to impose a limit because of how
a relationship changes (or may change) in relationship to you, without
consideration of how it (the relationship) effects the partner.
This new lover may be the best thing that's ever happened to your
partner, may be a very positive emotional occurance which you are willing to
force him/her to either discontinue or have you discontinue the relationship
with you, and your sole justification for this is because *YOU* don't like
the fact that he/she may not be there *on demand* to satisify *your* needs.
This doesn't sound very much like someone who loves someone else.
...Ken
Mark Evans
: >In fact Ken, our society has long believed in the validity of a variety of
: >double standards, and a large portion of our society still feels that
: >those standards have some validity. Take a look at many people's behaviour
: >and you will see that the "Men need to sow their wild oats, women should
: >be faithful and virginal" double standard is alive and kicking. You and I
: >and most everyone _here_ thinks that double standard is *WRONG*, but it's
: >still out there.
: Actually, our society has *always* held the belief that double standards
: are *WRONG*, it's just thet we have refused to accept that certain
: activities were in fact double standards.
: For example, it was considered *natural* for men to want to "get into
: every girl's panties", there were few consequences to the male and it
: was seen as a sign of verility.
: On the other hand, it was seem as unnatural and evil for women to want
: the same thing (outside of marriage) because of the consequence of
: pregnancy.
: Today we recognize this as a double standard, in years gone by
: they thought differently.
It is quite possible that this double standard could actually end up
'going the other way'. Becuase the consequences of pregancy are changing.
Ryk
> I agree, Carol however, seems unwilling to negotiate. I invite you to go
>back and re-read some of the earlier posts, I think you will see that she
>presents quite a rigid picture.
[snip]
[this is me (unreferenced by Ken)]
>>Try phrasing it as "I respect you and your needs, while you respect me and
>>my needs" and it's not a double standard at all, even if those needs
>>happen to be different.
>
> Again, just scan or re-read the initial few posts/replies, I think you
>may have a different impression of this discussion after reading all of it
>in sequence.
Ken, I have read this thread in sequence. I found Carol's statements to be
in character with some of the other things she has posted in the past. If
you are concerned with context I recall several posts from Carol, well
before I noticed your input to this group, concerning the differences
among partners. Specifically, she suggested that Steve, her partner of 14?
years, did not sustain a relationship with more than one pair of shoes at
a time, let alone more than one person. She said that if Steve became
involved with someone else she would fully expect he would leave her (i.e.
be unable to support his end of their relationship).
In this context, her words made perfect sense to me, not as agression, but
just as acknowledgement of the way things were. I hope I haven't put
unpalatable words in her mouth, but I felt I had to speak up. (My
apologies Carol if you're listening)
I've noticed Carol's absence for the last couple of weeks. I hope this is
purely coincidental. If you have pushed Carol out, you've done us all a
disservice, and one that people will remember. I like Carol's opinions
(generally) and I admire her willingness to state them clearly.
Please lighten up Ken....
--
Ryk........Email: r...@weber.me.queensu.ca
Barbara Saunders
>>In fact Ken, our society has long believed in the validity of a variety of
>>double standards, and a large portion of our society still feels that
>>those standards have some validity. Take a look at many people's behaviour
>>and you will see that the "Men need to sow their wild oats, women should
>>be faithful and virginal" double standard is alive and kicking. You and I
>>and most everyone _here_ thinks that double standard is *WRONG*, but it's
>>still out there.
>
>
>activities were in fact double standards.
>
> For example, it was considered *natural* for men to want to "get into
>every girl's panties", there were few consequences to the male and it
>was seen as a sign of verility.
> On the other hand, it was seem as unnatural and evil for women to want
>the same thing (outside of marriage) because of the consequence of
>pregnancy.
> Today we recognize this as a double standard, in years gone by
>they thought differently.
I don't agree that they thought differently. My mother is a public
school "family life" teacher. One of the text books she was given to
use with her class admitted that exact double standard and claimed
that it is necessary to protect the sprouting male ego. The theory in
the book was that if a boy thinks a girl doen't _want_ to have sex
with him, his ego will be damaged; if he thinks she just _can't
because of the double standard, he'll assume she really wants to and
his manliness will be preserved.>
>
>>I think that within every individual relationship you will find
>>differences between what partners expect of each other. In good
>>relationships these differences will be negotiated based on the strengths
>>and weaknesses, wants and desires of the partners involved, and every
>>relationship will be different.
>
>
> I agree, Carol however, seems unwilling to negotiate. I invite you to go
>back and re-read some of the earlier posts, I think you will see that she
>presents quite a rigid picture.
>
>
>
>>For me, anybody, including you Ken, who walks up from outside and tries to
>>tell people in a relationship that their particular arrangements (mutually
>>agreed upon) are socially unacceptable is being incredibly rude.
>
>
> As to a consentual arrangment, that was delt with in the first or second
>post/reply. The discussion has moved beyond that and is now focused on Carol'
>s assertion that she has the right to decide wither her partner is "capable"
>of undertaking certain activities and, based upon her concept of his
>ability, dictate to him, using the phrase "if you do this, I will not
>continue the relationship."
>
In a sense, I believe, it is her "right." Her loss, too, though.
Barbara>
>>Try phrasing it as "I respect you and your needs, while you respect me and
>>my needs" and it's not a double standard at all, even if those needs
>>happen to be different.
>
>
> Again, just scan or re-read the initial few posts/replies, I think you
>may have a different impression of this discussion after reading all of it
>in sequence.
>
>
>>--
>>Ryk........Email: r...@weber.me.queensu.ca
>
>
>...Ken
Cappy Harrison
when I read the subject line the first few time, I thought is said "Pelvic
Self-Exams"! And I thought, "That's cool, but how is it relevant to
polyamory??"
Silly me! :^)
Cappy
wood...@latcs1.lat.oz.au
for 2 weeks, to start looking at news again, and unsurprisingly there's a
whole bunch o' stuff I want to say! 8-P
st...@netcom.com (Stef Jones) writes:
>There is a way that it can be a consensual double standard: if a
>polyamorous person and a monogamous person are partners.
Aha! Yes! I've been talking to people about this very topic for some
time now!
Although my experience of what I might call "lop-sided poly" is quite
the opposite of what Stef is talking about - a good friend has said to me
on more than one occasion that they've thought of themselves as monogamous
but would prefer poly partners.
>My point is: why is there a difference in the way people think of these
>two situations? Why is it OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a poly
>partner" but less OK to say "I am poly and I prefer a monogamous
>partner"?
A consentual double-standard removes much of the problem I have in
this sort of situation, but I'll confess to still being somewhat bothered.
I think it's a function of the motivation one has for being poly. For
me, being poly is about removing constraint from a partner. Naturally,
like most people, I tend to project my own thoughts & motivations on
others. Given such a projection of my poly motivation, I am predisposed
to think of a poly person wanting monogamous partners as someone who
desires a removal of constraint from their own life when they are unhappy
about extending this to their partners.
I can certainly imagine many other motivations for being poly. Many
of these don't involve the sort of... hypocrisy, I guess, that I'm reacting
to in my projection scenario above.
>Suppose a poly person didn't look for poly partners, they looked for mono
>partners who didn't mind their being poly. How do we feel about that?
I might wonder how well it would work out... it seems to me that this
situation would almost certainly encourage some power imbalances, and
even when open & consentual I still think power in relationships should
be as balanced and equivalent (note I don't say "equal"! 8->) as possible.
>Why is a consensual double standard not as good as a single standard?
Given the relationship problems I tend to see in the people around
me, not to mention in my own life, I tend to not have much faith in
people's ability to communicate well & effectively. This often means
that I question the extent to which consent in many situations is
fully informed.
And, as I said above, even consentual power imbalances bother me,
since I've decided power imbalances are, all other things being equal,
Not A Good Idea(TM).
>Isn't it somewhat more acceptable for a gay person to prefer another gay
>person as a partner than to prefer a bi person? Isn't it OK for a white
>person to prefer a white person as a partner, but a little less OK for a
>white person to prefer a black person?
>
>Why are we uncomfortable with preferences unless they are preferences for
>people who are *similar* to us?
I'm not sure if I can say this without offending people - but *yes*,
I *am* bothered to a certain extent by both your "similar" examples -
my experiences of biphobia at the hands of lesbian/gay people would
predispose me to regard a gay person preferring another gay person
over a bi person as more biphobia.
Ditto for the race example. Race is a category I'm blind to (I think)
in my relationships, so it's hard for me to hear someone seemingly
going out of their way to express a preference for the same race as
anything but racism. I'm trying to be careful to make it explicit that
these are my own subjective connotations I'm loading these examples
with...
Joe.
/ Joe Woodhouse / I'm just a sweet bisexual... / Hello, there.
/ Latrobe University / (think - Rocky Horror) / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Stef Jones
>st...@netcom.com writes:
>>Suppose a poly person didn't look for poly partners, they looked for mono
>>partners who didn't mind their being poly. How do we feel about that?
> I might wonder how well it would work out... it seems to me that this
>situation would almost certainly encourage some power imbalances, and
>even when open & consentual I still think power in relationships should
>be as balanced and equivalent (note I don't say "equal"! 8->) as possible.
I agree power should be, over the long run, balanced. But I think it is a
lot tricker than commonly assumed to figure out just what the power balance
in someone else's relationship really is (it's hard enough to figure it out
in your own).
In a lot of cases no doubt a poly/mono combination would be
power-imbalanced. But I don't think it is inherently so. That would be so
only if one assumes that either poly or mono is inherently superior for
everyone.
I do think there is a tendency for people here to assume that being poly is
superior, that you "get" to be poly and you "have" to be mono. I don't
think that's necessarily so.
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Joshu is my favorite Zen Master. It is said that a monk
once asked him, To be holy - what is it like?"
Joshu replied, "To dump a mountain of shit on a clean
plain." -- Disk Sutphen
Paul E. Ourada
Oh dear! I can see it coming now -- a whole new thread on whether or not
one can relate only to one's self and still be polyamorous! :) :) :)
Paul
pa...@ohmeda.com
Ofer Inbar
> I agree, Carol however, seems unwilling to negotiate. I invite you to go
>back and re-read some of the earlier posts, I think you will see that she
>presents quite a rigid picture.
> As to a consentual arrangment, that was delt with in the first or second
>post/reply. The discussion has moved beyond that and is now focused on Carol'
> Again, just scan or re-read the initial few posts/replies, I think you
>may have a different impression of this discussion after reading all of it
>in sequence.
Anytime a thread degenerates to pointers to past posts, and
explanations of "what we were talking about", "what we're talking
about now", and what other people said... Perhaps it's time to move
on to a different subject? Oh well, ignore me, I'll ignore you :)
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@cs.brandeis.edu
-- WBRS (BRiS) -- WB...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WB...@brandeis.bitnet
"We all misuse the net for personal gain, one way or another."
-- Larry Wall <lw...@netlabs.com>