Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Poly as a Lifestyle

0 views

Skip to first unread message

JennieD-O'C

unread,

May 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/11/96

I don't have any answers to the "should" parts of your questions, but I
can tell you what we do.

Strumpet <stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:

>1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
>married?

At the moment, we have two bedrooms for three people. Mine-and-Iain's,
and mine-and-Chris's. This has to do somewhat with our present chosen
living arrangements -- we live in two adjoining townhouses. When we move,
it is possible that we might try things the way you suggest, but that
seems doubtful at this point.

>2. Should the finances be pooled into one large bill-paying account
>and have all partners withdraw from that account

Right now, we treat finances like we treat beds -- there's account for me
and Iain, and a second account for me and Chris. However, this is a lot
more likely to change than the bed thing. When we move, we'll most
likely change this to having an "Intranet account" (for family financial
responsibilities such as rent or mortgage, bills, perhaps cons) and one
individual account for each person. Each person will have his or her
paycheck directly deposited into his or her own account and then a
certain (previously specified) amount of it transfered into the family
account every month. Probably.

>3. Child Rearing.

We don't do that, thank God.

---
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org>

Strumpet

unread,

May 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/11/96

Okay, I admit it. I'm new to this newsgroup. I seem to see a lot of
folks who wish to define individual polyamory to a certain few
criteria. Fine, if that is what you want.
My questions seem to be leaning more toward what one does with this
character trait once it is established in your partnerships. I myself
envision being able to live with my loves, either all in the same
household or at least as near neighbors. All of my loves have their
own incomes and can support themselves in varying degrees of comfort.
I am the only one with children at present, though one of the males
has fathered elsewhere.
I would like to ask questions and build a reasonable scenario of what
it would be like to live with all my partners without bringing the
legal authorities down on our heads. Here in North Carolina USA there
are still laws on the books that limit partnerships without the
benefit of marriage. Please feel free to agree or disagree and/or make
suggestions as to alternatives.

1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally

married? I say "Yes" mainly because each and every person should have
a right to their own space, even if they choose to sleep elsewhere
most nights. There is almost always a need for private time, whether
it be to read a book in peace or hold a quiet conversation.

2. Should the finances be pooled into one large bill-paying account

and have all partners withdraw from that account (probably via one
partner being named "treasurer" and having actual posession of the
checkbook and ATM card to avoid mismanagement)? Or should the partners
sit down and decide among themselves what proportions each should pay
according to hir income so that the highest-paid partner does not feel
s/he is carrying the weight more than hir fair share? I myself favor
the first option simply because I am no mathematician and could not
possibly calculate how much each partner should pay toward each bill.
Yes, in the first option, the higher-paid members do carry a larger
portion of the burden of debt, but the lowest-paid member is donating
hir income in total same as everyone else and every dollar means more
to hir because they are so few and precious. By using the treasurer
(who, IMHO, should be the most financially responsible of the
partnership) all debts are paid off and s/he is not able to play Deity
with the finances because everyone contributes and therefore has a say
in what purchases are made. The partnership, in effect, becomes a
"corporation" structure.
3. Child Rearing. Big issue. For every three partners, there will be
four or more ways of raising the kids. I advocate that all adults are
equally responsible and when conflicts develop over, say, discipline,
then a consensus is reached "In Committee", so to speak. Basic rules
can be hammered out ahead of time and posted prominently, but there
will always be situational crisis'.

There's more I can think of or have experienced, but I think that is
enough to warrant pulling my asbestos suit on. <Dons suit> Okay,
everyone, "Flame ON"! <g>

Lee (aka Strumpet)

Stef Jones

unread,

May 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/11/96

Strumpet (stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net) writes:

> I would like to ask questions and build a reasonable scenario of what
>it would be like to live with all my partners without bringing the

>legal authorities down on our heads. [...]

Keep in mind that the authorities probably won't care unless one of the
people involved in your relationship makes an issue out of it (i.e., during
divorce proceedings).

>1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
>married? I say "Yes" mainly because each and every person should have
>a right to their own space, even if they choose to sleep elsewhere
>most nights. There is almost always a need for private time, whether
>it be to read a book in peace or hold a quiet conversation.

It's up to the people involved. I live with one partner, and we really
don't have "our own rooms" at this point. I have an office and so does he,
but he uses a part of my office frequently. In previous relationships,
however, I've required my own room. I don't think the authorities would
care about this.

>2. Should the finances be pooled into one large bill-paying account
>and have all partners withdraw from that account (probably via one
>partner being named "treasurer" and having actual posession of the
>checkbook and ATM card to avoid mismanagement)? Or should the partners
>sit down and decide among themselves what proportions each should pay
>according to hir income so that the highest-paid partner does not feel
>s/he is carrying the weight more than hir fair share? I myself favor
>the first option simply because I am no mathematician and could not
>possibly calculate how much each partner should pay toward each bill.

I strongly believe that every person should have zir own bank account and
zir own money.

As for household expenses, each person can contribute a certain amount,
decided by the people involved, to a joint account for household expenses.
Or each person can take charge of particular expenses. For example, my
partner pays some of the utilities and I pay others; we alternate paying
the rent. For a while, I was making more than he was, and I paid the rent
2/3 of the time. Now each of us pays the rent half of the time.

>3. Child Rearing. Big issue. For every three partners, there will be
>four or more ways of raising the kids. I advocate that all adults are
>equally responsible and when conflicts develop over, say, discipline,
>then a consensus is reached "In Committee", so to speak. Basic rules
>can be hammered out ahead of time and posted prominently, but there
>will always be situational crisis'.

I agree. I have no experience with this as yet.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty ** Blue ()
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef ** /\

Michael Sullivan

unread,

May 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/12/96

In article <4n1oob$k...@news.campus.mci.net>,
Strumpet <stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:

>2. Should the finances be pooled into one large bill-paying account

>and have all partners withdraw from that account (probably via one
>partner being named "treasurer" and having actual posession of the
>checkbook and ATM card to avoid mismanagement)? Or should the partners

I'm not in any kind of relationship right now, so this is all subject to
change and negotiation, but for both of these, I've got fairly firm ideas of
what I consider "optimal" and they'd apply equally well in a monogamous
relationship as a N>2 poly household. In fact, I'd apply them to any
sort of communal living arrangement, whether or not there was "amory"
involved.

1) assuming it can be afforded, each person has their own room, and there
is some amount of completely common space. People can sleep wherever they
want, but everyone has at least one bit of space that other people enter
by invitation only (even if that invitation is mostly an open one for some
or all of the other house/family members).

Money is a little different as far as how it would apply to non-family
situations, but in a mono or poly family, I'd want to do something
similar to what you suggest. I'd want there to be a household account
which gets used for rent, food, furniture, bills and all the essential
expenses. Make a budget to determine how much goes in there, and
determine who pays what by negotiation. Assuming everyone makes a
reasonable amount of money, just splitting it should be sufficient.
Obviously there are many situtations where a non-equal split would be fairer
and amenable to all involved.

Anything that doesn't go into the household account, people keep and do
with as they see fit. The budget gets held to strictly, anyone wants to
go overbudget on a category in there either forks it from their personal
account, or renegotiates the budget.

The gray area would be things like a retirement fund. Would I set up a
household fund or let that be decided on by the individuals. If I really
were certain that the arrangement was for life (essentially a marriage),
I think I'd push for that.

One thing I'm guessing is that money won't be a big issue in a many adult
family unless children are involved. Three adults live a hell of a lot
cheaper than three times one adult. I don't think it would be hard to
arrange it so that expenses get paid, a fund gets set up that'll pay off
household expenses indefinitely after ~20yrs., and everyone has plenty of
extra to play with.

Realistically, I could rent (or pay mortgage on) a place to support three
people comfortably for maybe 1.5 times what I'm paying for my current
one-bedroom apt. Food for 3 might cost twice food for one, and
utilities/phone would be unlikely to more than double. That's a lot of
big expenses that would go down dramatically for all involved.

I think I'm going to cross that bridge when I've got a poly family that's
thinking about children. It will, however be very interesting to see how
the folks here who have 'em or want 'em will answer this.

The bright side is that if you have an odd number of partners you can
always agree to break deadlocks with a vote. That's an option a dyadic
relationship doesn't have.

Michael

Catherine Deville

unread,

May 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/12/96

These are actually very good questions and they tend to come up
periodically. The answer in general is always "Whatever works for
you", although I think that the answer to 3 is a little less flexible
because of the dynamics of parenting.

Here are my opinions and how it works for our family:

stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net (Strumpet) wrote:

>1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
>married?

This tends to vary depending on the personalities of the people
involved. Some people simply have no need for 'personal space',
others absolutely _must_ have it.

In our household we try and have at least one bedroom per person
simply to permit the luxury of private space (it also allows us to
have _guests_ when we wish to) and then try and have a bonus room if
possible as a common ritual room or office space. That is our ideal,
but we have not as yet achieved it.

>sit down and decide among themselves what proportions each should pay
>according to hir income so that the highest-paid partner does not feel
>s/he is carrying the weight more than hir fair share?

I, personally, do not feel like it is a 'family' if the financial
burden is not _shared_! I guess that comes from growing up in a
family that used 'option 1', although in my family of origin my father
earned the money, my mother managed the money, but my _father_ made
all the decisions.

What we strive for is that everyone puts into the pot and all the
bills get paid out of one pot. Our problem with this system is not,
as one might expect, the discrepancy between who puts in how much or
who gets to make the decisions... we handle that pretty well. Our
problems come with the fact that _two_ of us tend to pull money from
the account because the person who keeps the records (me) is not the
person who has transportation and is often necessarily responsible for
paying bills, must have gas and ends up buying the groceries. Our
problems also come from other logistical concerns, eg. failures in
communication ('you were _supposed_ to use the cash, not the card!'),
poor financial management (the only one of us good at it can't
'juggle' bills when needed) and, well, poor financial management (i.e.
lack of discipline in budgeting and not _spending_). Of course, not
having enough discretionary income available helps too.

Finally, our ultimate plan is that when we do have discretionary
income, that we will all be given a discretionary income 'allowence'
above our 'community expenses' (including agreed upon discretionary
expenses incurred for the family) because the current plan leaves no
leaway for us to buy gifts for each other and such.

I really think that this is the _only_ way that childrearing can be
handled in intentional ommunity. In our tribe, where the families are
pretty autonomous physically, the children do identify more with their
'immediate' family, but every child knows that _any_ adult can be
responsible for them, up to and including discipline. <S> you hear a
lot of "no, I distinctively heard your mother say you could NOT do
that" or "let's go ask your Mom/Dad if that's ok". We _all_ back the
'parents of origin' and there are never conflicts around the kids, and
consequently, there is very little 'discipling' that has to be done.
(I've never seen any of the children - 7 in all, going on 8 probably
this month) get more than a time out or a _very_ minor 'slap' for
_anything_. And I've never had a 'power' conflict with any of them
even though I don't have children of my own and am the 'newcomer'
relatively speaking.

I think it helps that the children, especially the _older_ children (5
and up) recognize that this group parenting often means that they get
to do more. When the adults are doing something as a group, there is
always _an_ adult to keep the children occupied with children's
activities. In addition, sometimes they get to do things they
wouldn't otherwise as well, like getting to go swimming because my
husband will watch them, even though their father and mother are both
busy.

In my opinion, group parenting, if you can establish common values and
respect and a policy of not conflicting _over_ the children in front
of the children, is a wonderful thing with everyone participating
benefiting.

sincerely,
Catherine Deville

please note... cdev...@ix.netcom.com is also CatDe...@aol.com
please send e-mail to AOL address for faster reply.

el...@peg.apc.org

unread,

May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96

In topic 20 Poly as a Lifestyle

Cat (cdev...@ix.netcom.com) sez:

>stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net (Strumpet) wrote:

>These are actually very good questions and they tend to come up
>periodically. The answer in general is always "Whatever works for
>you", although I think that the answer to 3 is a little less flexible
>because of the dynamics of parenting.

I concur. Good questions. I'm not sure I entirely agree that
finances are more flexible than kids.

In all the following, I'm speaking from my experience and in my
opinion. "Whatever works for you" is the basic rule. I've noticed
that many people have tried "not discussing" the issue and
hopeing things will work, and it rarely does, so the minor rule is
"talk it through".

Like Cat, I tend to prefer "tribal poly". My perspective will be
slanted that way.

>>1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
>>married?

Yes. I've found that I like this regardless of the relationship.
Even during my brief bout of monogamy, I found there were lots
of times where a "personal space" was welcome or wanted. It can
be set up as a study or workspace if you mostly sleep with
someone, but it is a *really* good idea to have a bed (preferably
at least a large double bed) in it, and for it to be a nice enough
environment that sleeping there feels like "my room" rather than
being consigned to "the spare bed".

In communities, we've always functioned on the basis that
everyone gets their "territory", their personal space, even when
people enter as a couple. How people arrange things is up to
them. Even in group houses, its really good to have separate
bedrooms. It can be fun to switch around, and "visit" each
other's space.

>This tends to vary depending on the personalities of the people
>involved. Some people simply have no need for 'personal space',
>others absolutely _must_ have it.

My mileage varies. I don't have a lot of need for personal space,
and have shared bedrooms with two or three due to financial
constraints on numbers of rooms we can afford, but I've always
found that after a while, I need to have a sense of being able to
put my personal imprint on some part of my living environment
(aside from work space). I've noticed that in others, too. In a
shared bedroom, usually one person's taste seems dominant,
and others just add little touches. I've never met a person with
*no* need for personal space, long-term.

>In our household we try and have at least one bedroom per person
>simply to permit the luxury of private space (it also allows us to
>have _guests_ when we wish to) and then try and have a bonus room if
>possible as a common ritual room or office space. That is our ideal,
>but we have not as yet achieved it.

A *BIG* advantage of multiple partners living together, is that
the amount of space you can afford seems to increase
logarithmically. A four bedroom house is often not a lot more
expensive than a two bedroom, and a five-bedroom not much
more than a four, and will usually have all kinds of extras, more
yard space, bigger kitchen, laundry room, maybe an activity
room or whatever. If you are all working, its possible to do all
sorts of things, an office/study, a meditation room, etc. It's also
really, really good that you only need one (maybe two) fridges,
one washing machine, etc. There are *definite* advantages to big
multi-adult families

>>2. Should the finances be pooled into one large bill-paying account
>>and have all partners withdraw from that account (probably via one

>>partner being named "treasurer" and having actual possession of the

>>checkbook and ATM card to avoid mismanagement)? Or should the partners
>>sit down and decide among themselves what proportions each should pay
>>according to hir income so that the highest-paid partner does not feel
>>s/he is carrying the weight more than hir fair share?

>I, personally, do not feel like it is a 'family' if the financial
>burden is not _shared_! I guess that comes from growing up in a
>family that used 'option 1', although in my family of origin my father
>earned the money, my mother managed the money, but my _father_ made
>all the decisions.

I find some variation of option 2 generally works better. One
community I was in worked on the basis of everyone putting in
their basic "operating" dues into kitty, and adding 10% of
income. Operating covered all basic household stuff, including
material for projects, shampoo, common-use books, etc. We had
periodic meetings. Personal transport was on the basis of hiring
one of the vehicles at cost (including maintenance) and someone
had the "job" of looking after the cars, making sure they had oil,
were maintained, etc. (Just like someone had the "job" of doing
the books, and someone had the "job" of doing the kitchen
rosters, food ordering, etc., and someone had the "job" of
shopping.) If you wanted to, you could order, or ride to town with
the shopper for free, but it was up to you to meet them, or work
out how to get home.

This left everyone with a varying amount of "personal money".
...Which didn't seem to be a problem.

In smaller group houses, we've often worked on the basis of a
"kitty" and contributions may vary with income, maybe not. In
this case, it was generally expected that the person(s) with bigger
income would buy extras (books, etc.) or take their lesser-
incomed beloveds out to dinner, movies, shows, whatever. Not
uncommon was having one with more money pay for a dance
concert or dinner, and the one with less money pay for coffee
and cakes afterwards. That way, everyone got to "treat" their
beloveds, and yet there was some consideration of the fact that
people earn differently. That seems to work fairly well, although
there are sometimes tensions where one member has big
expenses or minimal income.

In tighter "family" houses, we've sometimes pooled all the money,
and decided on an "allowance" for personal money. In that case,
going out as a group was normally a "house expense". Personal
"life expenses" (uni fees, uni books, tools, etc) came from kitty.

In my experience that didn't work so well, since people's ideas of
what are a "necessity" or "life expense" differ. I found it hard to
deal with the fact that one partner had the house pay for uni
costs, including paint, canvas, and a large range of art supplies
(ze was an art student), trips to museums and payment for art
workshops, while an upgrade on my computer was considered
an "unjustified personal expense". Since our "personal
allowance" was only $15 week, it was going to be difficult for me
to save my pennies. The fact that I was making most of the
money, and used my computer for work, exacerbated my
resentment of the situation. While I basically like a considerable
amount of collective finances, my personal experience of total
collectivity is that it gets a bit puritanical, and makes it difficult
to do personal things.

I won't cite all Cat's comments, although I'll echo them. Who
puts in what was generally not a problem, unless there seemed
to be an inequity about who's needs/desires got paid for.

As to the "financial management" stuff, it will always be a
problem at any level. In a group you need to establish basic
operating procedures (BOPs), have meetings occasionally, and if
someone has major problems sticking to the BOPs, take them
out of the job of handling money.

>>3. Child Rearing. Big issue. For every three partners, there will be
>>four or more ways of raising the kids. I advocate that all adults are
>>equally responsible and when conflicts develop over, say, discipline,
>>then a consensus is reached "In Committee", so to speak. Basic rules
>>can be hammered out ahead of time and posted prominently, but there
>>will always be situational crisis'.

In the communities I've lived in, everyone was expected to be a
"responsible adult" around kids, but there were some people who
had the "job" of making sure kids' needs were attended to. The
"people on children duty" decided among themselves what the
ground-rules and BOPs were, and let others know. Any adult
interested could "be on kids" or join the "kids collective" and
have input into how they are raised. If you weren't willing to take
on the job, you could keep your ideas to yourself.

"Parents of origin" often were "on kids" when their children were
young, but there was no requirement or expectation of this, and
some weren't. As kids hit school age, their parents of origin were
less likely to be "on the kids collective" all the time.

People who were *not* "on kids" were still expected to be
responsive to them, and to be aware of situations that were
developing or had developed. IE, if one or some of the kids were
playing around the cows, and throwing rocks or hitting with
sticks, or were fighting, then any adult passing by was expected
to step in. But they were not expected to keep track of kids
dinners, or whether they had clean clothes. That was for the
people "on kids".

People not "on kids" but with certain things in their "charge"
would also set up some "rules". EG, it was a rule that the kids
were not allowed in the woodshop or machine shop without an
adult present, and not allowed to touch machine tools, ever,
unless under direct personal supervision of an adult.

Incidentally, we had a rule that kids were free to join the adults
when they felt capable of taking on adult responsibilities (though
they might be "apprentice adults" for a while). We did not work
with "legal age". Until they decided to be adults, they were kids,
though there was some leeway on tool use and such for older
(responsible and competent) kids.

Children around a multiplicity of adults generally do very well at
getting what they need from various adults, and it seems to work
fine that adults have different ways of being and interacting with
kids. ...As long as no adult is doing something the other adults
feel is inappropriate. Adults were often good at giving some
thing, to some age, of kids. Some people were good at teaching
older kids to use tools, or play music. Some were good at doing
things (cooking, fruit picking, walks) with littlies.

We rarely had conflicts, except about physical discipline. This
can be thorny, where a bio-parent believes it is entirely
inappropriate, and another adult thinks it is entirely
appropriate. One particular case comes to mind, of an adult who
looked after the chickens. He said, "I've warned them, and if I
find them hitting the chooks with sticks again, I'll smack their
bums." The outcome was that the "concerned bio-parent" told
_her_ child to stay away from the chickenyard, which satisfied
both adults.(Her kid was one of the ring-leaders in hit-the-chook)

In shared-house situations, it was generally more "family-like".
Adults were typical adults. Some were "good parents", some
weren't, in the sense of being self-absorbed and not very "tuned-
in" to the kids. All felt some responsibility. Biological relationship
has never seemed much of a criteria, and I know a couple of
long-term shared-house families where the kids opted to go off
with non-bio parents when a relationship ended.

It can also be difficult.

I had a good friend who virtually raised the child of two members
of a community who were almost never "on kids". This woman
had not only looked after the boy, who was about the same age
as hers, but had breast-fed him when he was little, since his
mum was off on a theatre tour after giving birth. At 7, his mum
left the community, and took her son with her. This was very
hard on both the kids, and my friend. <sigh>

Dhanu River

******* el...@peg.apc.org *******
It aint necessarily so,
Oh no, it ain't necessarily so,
The things that yer preacher
was liable to teach ya,
No, It ain't necessarily so.
folk song
****************************************************************
Dhanu River ELVES
Environment, Life, and Viable Eco-social Systems
email: el...@peg.apc.org

Kemanorel

unread,

May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96

While seeking random acts of kindness and senseless beauty, Strumpet @ecsu.campus.mci said...

S@> I would like to ask questions and build a reasonable scenario of what
S@> it would be like to live with all my partners without bringing the

S@> 1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
S@> married? I say "Yes" mainly because each and every person should have

I agree with you here, Darling <G>.

S@> 2. Should the finances be pooled into one large bill-paying account
S@> and have all partners withdraw from that account (probably via one
S@> partner being named "treasurer" and having actual posession of the
S@> checkbook and ATM card to avoid mismanagement)? Or should the partners
S@> sit down and decide among themselves what proportions each should pay
S@> according to hir income so that the highest-paid partner does not feel
S@> s/he is carrying the weight more than hir fair share? I myself favor

Here is where I strongly disagree with you. I think the system Arwen
and I use could easily translate into larger group situations. We
evaluate (as necessary) monthly expenses and get a good estimate of
what they are. We then look at total household income and figure out
what percentage each person contributes to that. Then, those same
percentages are applied to the estimated household expenses and each
person puts their corresponding percentage into a joint household
account. The rest of each individual's income is handled as they
choose to pay personal bills and for personal, disposable monies.
This way, neither of us feels we are taking from the other to take
care of our personal responsibilities/entertainment. It also lets me
buy her surprises without her being privy to the cost <G>.

S@> 3. Child Rearing. Big issue. For every three partners, there will be
S@> four or more ways of raising the kids. I advocate that all adults are
S@> equally responsible and when conflicts develop over, say, discipline,
S@> then a consensus is reached "In Committee", so to speak. Basic rules
S@> can be hammered out ahead of time and posted prominently, but there
S@> will always be situational crisis'.

No real opinion here as the children in my life currently live in
other households and I just hold "favored aunt" status <G>.

Kemanorel--Committing Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty!
{kem...@snook.com}

... And now, some words of wisdom: A wholesome mind is wasted potential

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

R. Wald

unread,

May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96

About money and space:

It has always been important to me to have a little bit of private space,
and when I don't have it I get antsy. I am a firm advocate of personal space
that is visitable by invitation only (not that I have always had this); I think
I am much easier to get along with when I can opt out of society for a while.
When I was in a living situation where I had no personal space that wasn't
shared, I used to escape to the bathtub, but since we only had one bathroom
people were constantly knocking and yelling "can I come in and pee?" ...and
then starting conversations, "gee, your scars look neat..."

The best way I have had money handled in a group living situation was this:
We decided in advance what would be considered a group expense; they rule of
thumb was that four out of five of us had to like a food for it to go on
the approved communal list. That way we weren't derailed by, say, one person's
allergies or pickiness. Luxury items were only communal if everyone ate them-
brownie mix in particular was a frequent purchase but didn't count if you
were going to eat the brownies yourself or take them out of the house to a
party. Rent was split five ways, as were utilities and local phone charges.
Whe you bought food or tools for the house you totalled the communal amount
and submitted the total to the bill goddess.

Once a month, the bill goddess (she was a computer programmer) reckoned
everyone's rent-bills-food totals, how much each had already paid and how
much each owed. The rest of our money was our own, although those with a
little more usually treated those with a little less. There was no effort
to formally determine these expenses, other than a little on the spot
negotiating - "if I pick up the dry cleaning, can you pay for the movie?
I'm a little broke..."

Rebecca

Louise

unread,

May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96

stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net (Strumpet) wrote:

> I would like to ask questions and build a reasonable scenario of what

> it would be like to live with all my partners without bringing the

> legal authorities down on our heads.

> 1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
> married?

Are you asking about what's worked out for us, or are you asking whether
there might be legal/societal reasons for "appearing" to have separate
sleeping spaces?

In my own experience, it has been important to me that "their" bedroom is
now "our" bedroom, meaning that my dressing gown is hanging there, and my
piles of books are there, and some of my clothes are there, and our bed is
big enough for all of us to sleep comfortably, even when two out of three
have miserable colds and don't feel like snuggling. We're fortunate in
that our house provides space for three adults to read/think/write quietly
alone, while the children make noise somewhere else. I do need to have
access to space like that, but it doesn't need to be "my" space 24/7.
Both P and I also have dedicated desk-space where we can leave things in a
mess without feeling responsible to someone else. It's just occurred to
me that we've probably usurped R's main "private space", because it has
the best computer, but I don't know whether sie minds.

As for "appearing" proper: I don't see any reason why legal authorities
here would care. But we have no ex-partners seeking custody of our
children; it might be an issue in that case. I'm not yet out to my
parents, and I'm not sure where they think I sleep; perhaps if they came
to visit before I was ready to tell them more, I might make up one of the
spare beds to avoid awkwardness. Although I expect this to become less of
an issue for the three of us, as we come out gradually to the people who
matter in our lives, we'll need to remain respectful of the comfort levels
of our proto-teenagers. It might be easier for them, if we provided them
with "simple" answers to the questions their friends ask. "Isn't this
your mum? Oh, what's she doing here then? Where does she sleep?" We're
still thinking about these things.

Even in this eminently respectable suburb, there are lots of households
which have extra people around. There's "H's grandmother, who lives with
them now", and "I thought it was their aunt or something, but really it's
the mother of the kids who go there for daycare", and "She used to be
their mum's Little Sister, but now she's grown up so she's their friend",
so "Louise who stays with us sometimes" doesn't seem strange. After being
away most of the fall, at Thanksgiving I ran into one of the neighbours at
a hockey rink. "Oh, yes, you're the red car," he said, "will you be back
for Christmas?"

On the money questions, I don't have anything to add to previous responses.

> 3. Child Rearing. Big issue. For every three partners, there will be

> four or more ways of raising the kids. I advocate that all adults are

> equally responsible and when conflicts develop over, say, discipline,

> then a consensus is reached "In Committee", so to speak. Basic rules

> can be hammered out ahead of time and posted prominently, but there

> will always be situational crisis'.

You mentioned in your note, that you and your partners don't have children
now. So perhaps this comment isn't useful for you, but it may be for
others. In my experience, my partners' habits of reaching consensus and
spelling out rules and consequences ahead of time with their children have
made it much easier for me to participate usefully in parenting
*before/without* being a "primary parent" with "equal responsibility". As
Cat Deville described eloquently in her description of sharing parenting
of the children in her tribe, when the parents and children have already
agreed on the rules, it is relatively easy for a secondary parent to
follow along with the customs and to remind the children of the rules.
"Whose night is it to set the table? We'll be eating in 15 minutes" and
"Aren't you supposed to be using that outside?" are interactions that
aren't exerting *my* authority, but are referencing some accepted parental
standards, so it was easy for me to participate in them early on. Of
course, I still find myself saying "It's fine with me, but you better ask
Mum...." a lot .... Last weekend I heard one of the kids saying to P and R
"We're gonna have a Nerf war before supper, Louise says we can ...." in
the same way my brothers and I used to manipulate our own two busy parents
.... so I guess they know my opinion counts!

Louise

--
* Louise bs...@freenet.carleton.ca *
* "No-one said it would be easy; no-one thought we'd come this far." *
* -Sheryl Crow *

Strumpet

unread,

May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96

cdev...@ix.netcom.com (Catherine Deville) wrote:

>Here are my opinions and how it works for our family:
>stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net (Strumpet) wrote:
>>1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
>>married?
>This tends to vary depending on the personalities of the people
>involved. Some people simply have no need for 'personal space',
>others absolutely _must_ have it.

The common ritual room is a good idea. Right now we all share an
office and a "great room". Only one of us is not pagan, so this works
well.

>>2. Should the finances be pooled into one large bill-paying account
>>and have all partners withdraw from that account (probably via one
>>partner being named "treasurer" and having actual posession of the
>>checkbook and ATM card to avoid mismanagement)? Or should the partners
>>sit down and decide among themselves what proportions each should pay
>>according to hir income so that the highest-paid partner does not feel
>>s/he is carrying the weight more than hir fair share?

>Finally, our ultimate plan is that when we do have discretionary
>income, that we will all be given a discretionary income 'allowence'
>above our 'community expenses' (including agreed upon discretionary
>expenses incurred for the family) because the current plan leaves no
>leaway for us to buy gifts for each other and such.

The discretionary personal expense accounts are a good point. We have
a small problem in that only two of the five adults (coincidentally
the females) are good with money management. Between we two females,
we seem to have arrived at a workable budget scheme that even includes
pay-off of debts incurred before the tribe was formed. We had to
arrive at this system because one of the males can be most kindly
called "feckless". He has no ability to budget whatsoever, and, if
allowed access to the commual account would spend foolishly with no
regard to rent or other bills. (sigh)

All well thought out points. Thank you for your insight.

Lee

Michael D. Phoenix

unread,

May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96

In article <1996051820...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

Louise <bs...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
> stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net (Strumpet) wrote:
>
>> I would like to ask questions and build a reasonable

>> scenario of whatit would be like to live with all my partners

>> without bringing the legal authorities down on our heads.

Ugh. Sometimes I forget how absolutely lucky I am to live in
California.

I've never understood why any government should feel it has the right
to interfere about *anything* between consenting adults. Fscking
victimless crimes...*snarl*.

>> 1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are legally
>> married?
>

>In my own experience, it has been important to me that "their" bedroom is
>now "our" bedroom, meaning that my dressing gown is hanging there, and my
>piles of books are there, and some of my clothes are there, and our bed is
>big enough for all of us to sleep comfortably, even when two out of three
>have miserable colds and don't feel like snuggling.

Hmmm. I think for me that it would depend a lot on the nature of the
polyamory being practiced. For example, if I were in a polyfidelitous
relationship, I'd definitely want to share sleeping space with my
partners (to me, sleeping with a lover is a much more intimate
experience than making love with them--it's about *belonging*). But
if I were in a non-polyfidelitous poly household, I'd definitely want
my own bedroom so that:
1) I'd have a place to bring non-household lovers, and
2) I'd have a place to go when one of my partners brought a
non-household lover.

For me personally, in my ideal world, I see myself living in a
non-polyfidelitous poly household, with somewhere between 4 and 8
people total, where temporary bubbles of polyfidelity occur, at which
point sleeping arrangements tend to coagulate--said sleeping
arrangements separating again when that phase of polyfidelity goes
away. I might well, for example, want to "move in with" someone(s)
for a month or six while we really enjoyed being particularly close,
but then would want a "room of my own" to retreat to when I or they
decided to "branch out" a bit again.

I almost think I'd be happiest in a house where there were several
extra rooms, and the rooms varied in size from one-person cubby-holes
to five or six-person mass snuggle rooms, and people moved themselves
and their possessions from room to room as a reflection of the
relationships-of-the-moment.

But I think I'll wait to decide for sure until I've found the right 3
to 7 primaries to share my life with. *impatient sigh*...:-)

>alone, while the children make noise somewhere else. I do need to have
>access to space like that, but it doesn't need to be "my" space 24/7.

Hmmm. For me, "personal space" is almost entirely a non-bedroom
issue; I don't think of my bedroom as my personal space, but rather as
the place where I happen to be sleeping right now, and as
"relationship space".

"personal space" is much more of a "den" or "office" sort of thing for
me.

>Both P and I also have dedicated desk-space where we can leave things in a
>mess without feeling responsible to someone else. It's just occurred to

Hmmm. There was a time (pre-1-year-old) when I'd have wanted that;
now, my ideal personal space is a place where I can *keep things neat*
without being interfered with by someone else. :-)

>As for "appearing" proper: I don't see any reason why legal authorities
>here would care.

There actually are jurisdictions where bigamy and adultery are still
crimes, frightening though it seems.

>But we have no ex-partners seeking custody of our
>children; it might be an issue in that case.

I do have an ex-wife, and a daughter with her--and I suspect that I'll
find myself becoming very circumspect about my sexual lifestyle if she
ever makes custody noises in my daughter's direction.

>I'm not yet out to my
>parents, and I'm not sure where they think I sleep; perhaps if they came
>to visit before I was ready to tell them more, I might make up one of the
>spare beds to avoid awkwardness.

I really am lucky to have the parents I do--I've been out to them
about virtually all aspects of my sexuality ever since I was about
15...:-)

They've always been very supportive of it, although generally quite
uncomprehending ("You mean, you'd actually enjoy having someone *bite*
you during sex?!" "Yes, mom. Try it sometime." :-)

I honestly can't imagine *not* telling my parents who I was sleeping
with and why--I'd always be worrying that they'd figure it out, if I
tried to keep secrets from them.

It is a bit strange, though, having two monamorous parents and trying
to explain to them *why* one would want to be polyamorous, and how it
differs from "free love" or "casual sex".

>Although I expect this to become less of
>an issue for the three of us, as we come out gradually to the people who
>matter in our lives, we'll need to remain respectful of the comfort levels
>of our proto-teenagers. It might be easier for them, if we provided them
>with "simple" answers to the questions their friends ask. "Isn't this
>your mum? Oh, what's she doing here then? Where does she sleep?" We're
>still thinking about these things.

Oof. When you figure it out, tell me--I'm sure I'll have to start
explaining it to my daughter in another few years.

Somehow, knowing me, I expect I'll just tell my daughter "This is
Daddy's partner, Lisa. And this is Daddy's partner, Beth. And this
is Daddy's partner, Tom. And Beth is Lisa's partner, too, but Tom
isn't--he's Beth's. And...oh, go ask your mommy."

:-)

Seriously, I think that children should always be given the most
honest answer possible, but framed in their terms. So, if Deirdre at
age 3 wants to know "Why're Lisa and Beth both living with us, when
most kids have only one mommy?", a reasonable answer might be "Because
everybody's family is different--we've got a family with *so much
love* that we need an extra person to hold it all. And all three of
us love you very much."

Whereas if Deirdre at age 15 wants to know "Why're you sleeping with
Lisa and Beth? Can't you just pick one lover, like everybody else?"
I'd probably answer "Well, I, like lots of other people, love more
than one person. I believe in being honest about it, and in being
loving towards the people I find myself loving, rather than either
lying about it or hiding it from them. Some people only want to love
one person at a time, so they do. I want to love both Lisa and Beth,
so I do."

*shrug* Ask me after it happens, and I'll tell you what I did.

>so "Louise who stays with us sometimes" doesn't seem strange. After being
>away most of the fall, at Thanksgiving I ran into one of the neighbours at
>a hockey rink. "Oh, yes, you're the red car," he said, "will you be back
>for Christmas?"

Wonderful. :-)

>> 3. Child Rearing. Big issue. For every three partners, there will be
>> four or more ways of raising the kids. I advocate that all adults are
>> equally responsible and when conflicts develop over, say, discipline,
>> then a consensus is reached "In Committee", so to speak. Basic rules
>> can be hammered out ahead of time and posted prominently, but there
>> will always be situational crisis'.

I have to say, this absolutely wouldn't work for me. My daughter is
*my* daughter, my flesh and blood, linked to me with a bond which I
cannot imagine anything stronger than.

(and no, this isn't some abstract philosophical or cultural position
I'm taking here--it's a totally unexpected and unpredicted
*experience* that I had when I first saw my daughter in the flesh.
And yes, YMMV--but for me, *there is nothing* as powerful as the blood
relationship. This is my experience.)

I would not ever be comfortable having a non-biological parent being
"equally responsible" for my daughter's raising. If I had one or more
life partners, I'd be happy to let them share in the parenting of my
daughter--but they would *not* be "equally responsible".

Sorry. *retracts fangs*.

>others. In my experience, my partners' habits of reaching consensus and
>spelling out rules and consequences ahead of time with their children have
>made it much easier for me to participate usefully in parenting
>*before/without* being a "primary parent" with "equal
>responsibility".

Yes! Exactly!

I'd be pleased to have life-partner "parenting assistance" in terms of
implementing the decisions I make about my child's rearing--but I'd
never want a partner, life or otherwise, making decisions about how to
raise my child without consulting me.

For example, I will not use corporal punishment on my daughter. I
tried it--precisely once. The look of betrayal and loss in her eyes
was not something I am ever willing to see there again.

And I would not allow *ANYONE* in my life to have the kind of
relationship to my daughter which would let them decide that they were
authorized to use corporal punishment on her.

If that makes sense.

>As
>Cat Deville described eloquently in her description of sharing parenting
>of the children in her tribe, when the parents and children have already
>agreed on the rules, it is relatively easy for a secondary parent to
>follow along with the customs and to remind the children of the rules.
>"Whose night is it to set the table? We'll be eating in 15 minutes" and
>"Aren't you supposed to be using that outside?" are interactions that
>aren't exerting *my* authority, but are referencing some accepted parental
>standards, so it was easy for me to participate in them early on. Of

Yep. Bingo.

But even that level of parenting is something I'd be most comfortable
reserving for life partners--just because I'm dating someone or
sleeping with them doesn't mean I want them reminding my daughter
about my rules and such.

Take care,

Mickey.

Ryk

unread,

May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96

mic...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael D. Phoenix) wrote in article
<4noab2$7...@Radon.Stanford.EDU> to alt.polyamory

>Louise <bs...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>Although I expect this to become less of
>>an issue for the three of us, as we come out gradually to the people who
>>matter in our lives, we'll need to remain respectful of the comfort levels
>>of our proto-teenagers. It might be easier for them, if we provided them
>>with "simple" answers to the questions their friends ask. "Isn't this
>>your mum? Oh, what's she doing here then? Where does she sleep?" We're
>>still thinking about these things.
>
>Oof. When you figure it out, tell me--I'm sure I'll have to start
>explaining it to my daughter in another few years.

[further reasonable comments on how one might discuss poly
relationships with one's children]

I think you missed the point. Louise is talking about finding easy ways
for our children to explain us to their friends without embarrassing
themselves. It's a lot easier on teenagers if they have the option of
fitting in, even though their parents may be a little weird, hence it
would be nice if they could side-step the question.

For good or ill, we are entirely out to the children. They seem quite
comfortable about it, and have awarded Louise status somewhere between
"aunt" and "mum". They certainly look forward to having her around the
house.

Ryk
--
--
but if you *try*, sometimes you *can* get what you need.....

Lars P. Fischer

unread,

May 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/21/96

>>>>> "Strumpet" == <stru...@ecsu.campus.mci.net>

Strumpet> 1. Should all persons have their own rooms, even if two are
Strumpet> legally married?

Whatever they like and can afford.

Personally I have a strong need for somewhere I can go and be alone,
somewhere I can leave newspapers and magazines and books in random
stacks. I does not have to be a room where others never enter -- I
don't care about that. What matters is that I can be alone with a
book sometimes and that I will not feel responsible for keeping this
room orderly in time for some activity or to please someone. It's OK
if it's just a small room, I don't need anything fancy, and I'd prefer
it not to be the room where I sleep.

A number of answers here has mentioned bedrooms -- I personally do not
care if where I sleep is my bedroom or shared, if I sleep in the same
bed every night, etc. I just need a place to sleep.

Other folks will have different needs; I can't offer any specific
guidelines other than I would try to accommodate everyone, money and
other practical issues allowing.

Strumpet> 2. Should the finances be pooled into one large bill-paying
Strumpet> account and have all partners withdraw from that account
Strumpet> (probably via one partner being named "treasurer" and having
Strumpet> actual posession of the checkbook and ATM card to avoid
Strumpet> mismanagement)?

I'd hate that.

I'm strongly in favour of everyone having hir own account. Regular
bills and expenses can be handled by creating a budget and agreeing on
how much everyone will pay, depending on income and so forth. The
bills and expenses can then be distributed and everyone pays from
their own accounts (with a status every, say, 3 months to check that
no-one pays more than they should) or an extra account could be
created with everyone transferring the agreed upon amount every month
and everyone having an ATM/direct debit card for this account.

I don't mind paying most of the bills if I'm the one making most of
the money. That's only reasonable. I wouldn't like having only a
single, shared account, since I would then feel I was accountable to
others for every single little expense I have; I want to be able to go
by 3 CDs this evening and know it's OK 'cause it's my money and I know
I can afford it.

I don't mind giving others access to my account so they can transfer
money back and forth when needed, either. I trust my partners to only
do so when necessary and to let me know what's going on.

I'm also in favour of having as many regular bills as at all possible
set up for automated electronic payment; I don't see why I should have
to deal with paying rent and phone and newspapers and whatnot. Bank
computers where designed for this kind of thing.

For larger, one-time expenses, i.e., buying a new computer or a
high-end CD player or whatever, I'd prefer that agreement on who pays
how much are made for each expense, based on who can afford it and who
stands to benefit.

As for children, well, I'm yet to go beyond asking "should we?".

/Lars
--
Lars P. Fischer, fis...@dina.kvl.dk, http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~fischer
Anything that moves / is all-right -- Sort Sol

0 new messages