Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Polyamory
At the Polyamory Round-Table discussion at last weekend's Conflation, moderator (and Polyamory Weekly podcaster) [info]cunningminx opened with the Test Pilot's Motto: "Always tell the next guy what killed you." In particular what she was asking the panel was, "Based on any of your past poly relationships that have failed, what's the most important lesson that you learned that you want to pass on to people who are new to polyamory?" She has her own list, which she's been using at at least two conferences or conventions so far, you can see it at the Poly Weekly website. When she gets the recording from the Conflation poly panel up, probably in one of the next couple of podcasts, you can hear what we all had to say. But I wanted to post my remarks here, too, and expand on them a bit.

There are almost no problems in polyamorous relationships that monogamous couples (and individuals) don't have. Almost none of those problems are magically cured by becoming polyamorous. So if you have problems in monogamous relationships, when you get into polyamorous relationships, you're going to have those same problems. Some of them, you'll have even more so. For example, if your problem is that you reflexively lie to avoid arguments or confrontations, being poly means having more people to keep your lies straight with. If your past monogamous partners thought you were passive-aggressive because you were raised (or otherwise conditioned) not to ask for what you want, being poly means having more people in your life who can't read your mind. If your pre-existing monogamous relationships didn't make you feel attractive enough, becoming poly will mean getting rejected not just by people who find you unattractive, but also by even more people who would have found you attractive but who think that consensual non-monogamy is disgusting. (It's like the old joke about bisexuality meaning that you get rejected by twice as many people.) If your problem is that you're bad at budgeting time or attention for your partner, having to divide your time and attention across more partners is not going to make this any easier, to say the least. I could list more examples of habitual, recurring, lifetime relationship problems that are not solved by becoming polyamorous, and frequently made worse by it, all day. But really, they're all summed up in one of the more famous slogans of the [info]dot_poly_snark community: "Relationship broken: add more people."

Except that the actual truth is even more horrific than that, sad to say. Yes, all romantic and sexual relationships have problems. Some have more problems or worse problems than others, but there's nothing all that weird about any couple (let alone triad, vee, quad, or network) having problems with their relationship. When you have problems, smart people find someone reliable, at least allegedly knowledgeable, trustworthy, and with relevant experience to ask for advice. But when polyfolk go to almost anybody and say, "I'm having this, and this, and this problem with my relationship with so-and-so," the only advice that anybody is willing to give them is "well, first, stop being polyamorous and see if that solves the problem." It is exactly like the problem that all fat people have with doctors. If you're above a certain weight, then it doesn't matter what problem you go to the doctor with, most doctors are going to tell you, "Well, first, you need to lose some weight." It doesn't matter if it's a broken wrist, a bad sinus cold, a cut that needs stitches, an allergic reaction -- an appallingly large number of doctors will find some way to blame it on your weight, and the worst of them will refuse to offer you any other treatment until you agree to first, or at least simultaneously, be "medically treated" for your weight.

That's exactly what it's like looking for relationship advice, whether you're asking your mother or your best friend or your psychiatrist or your minister, when you're poly. "Well, you know, you wouldn't have this problem if you didn't insist on having multiple partners." Excuse my language, but the only adequate answer to that is, "fuck you, asshole." It's just simply almost never true; they really are exactly the same problems, and really do spring from the same sources that they would even if you only had a relationship with one person at a time. But they can't help themselves. Like the doctor offended by the mere existence of fat people, your mother and your best friend and your shrink and your minister are offended, and not a little threatened, by your existence as a polyamorous person; they are actively looking for excuses to tell you to stop.

What can you do about it? Minx suggested that this is why it's so important for polyfolk to have an active local polyamory community, and for new people to get involved in one. I see why she says this, but it runs entirely contrary to my experience. At least here in St. Louis, the local poly community is fractious enough to be very little help, and all the poly groups I've known are (for legitimate reasons that I think I've talked about in the past) deeply allergic to people who are new to polyamory and want nothing to do with them. The two pieces of advice I'd give instead are first, learn to be more self-reliant than you would have to be if you stayed within society's default rules, because you're not always going to be able to find anybody to advise you. The second one is to make absolutely sure that there is at least one good friend in your life who knows you well, someone whose opinions and feelings you respect and who respects you, someone who specifically you aren't in a relationship with and don't want to be, and make absolutely damned sure you keep that person in your life. They can provide you with one service that will be relationship-, sanity-, and even sometimes life-saving, something every bit as important as knowledgeable advice, and that is an external reality check.

What have you got?

Tags:

Comments

[info]reannon wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 03:08 pm (UTC)
Thank you for this post. I wish I'd made the poly roundtable - it sounds like it was a good discussion.
[info]cuglas wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 05:18 pm (UTC)
If the problem is such that you think you need counseling, either alone or as a family, you need to be able to find a counselor who is not going to freak out about the poly thing. There's a few ways to handle this. In St. Louis, you could try looking for therapists who advertise in the Pride Pages (get a copy at Cheap TrX or other gay friendly establishment.) They often advertise that they are not only "GLBT friendly" but friendly to other alternative sexualities.

If you don't find anything there, try Kink Aware Professionals or AASECT for a referral. I highly recommend AASECT.
[info]thesecondcircle wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 08:04 pm (UTC)
Professional references are critical for alternative lifestyles of any type. From GLBT to alternative religions (you don't want your therapist telling you you're crazy for being Pagan) to alternative gender and so on. This could include marriage and personal therapists, physicians, accountants and financial advisers (how do three people best buy a house?). Also regular services such as auto mechanics and plumbers (you don't the mechanic to overcharge you for being a transsexual and you don't want your plumber calling CPS when he sees that Heather has three mommies).

It's the counter to all those people with jesus fish in their yellow pages listings.
[info]scentofkether wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 08:34 pm (UTC)
I can't agree with this more. The names of *.-friendly therapists and professionals are passed around like solid gold among my little circle, because there are too many people unable to get basic services without being judged.

I'd be wary of trusting the Pride Pages. At least one doctor with that reference (one who is no longer practicing) put on rubber gloves before taking my pulse when he saw I was queer.

And just like everything else terminology is king. A therapist who's led a sheltered life may consider herself "friendly to alternate sexualities" ... which she thinks means encouraging heterosexual couples to use sex toys. She'll probably be disabused of her notions quickly, but do you want to be the one she freaks out on?

*shudder*

Yes. Treasure those references, and be sure to spread them yourself. Now that I think of it I should start advertising appropriately open-minded professionals I come across in my blog ... with permission, of course.
[info]cuglas wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 09:49 pm (UTC)
Try referrals from AASECT. They're really great.
[info]hps_sterling wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 10:34 pm (UTC)
As someone who has medical experience, I put on gloves before I touch anyone skin to skin; gay, straight, trans, other. My reasons have to do with germs not orientation. I can't wash my hands enough in a day to deal with all the germs I come in contact with without my skin drying out and cracking. Your hands and arms up to about mid-forearm are pretty scary when it comes to how much germs you have kicking around.

That isn't to say your care provider wasn't a phobe, but it may just be someone trying to avoid their 1,000th cold of the season. :D
[info]scentofkether wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 10:52 pm (UTC)
That's the only time in my life I've ever had a health care provider put on gloves when they weren't actually touching an orifice, though. More to the point, he didn't put them on until I outed myself. (My standard response to "what birth control do you use?" is "not sleeping with men.")

And oh, yeah, he was a phobe no matter which way you sliced it. That was just the single action that most offended me.

I probably should have been more ticked off that he conducted only the most cursory examination before diagnosing STD and hustling me out of the office. (I wasn't even sexually active back then. I went to another doctor, who was amazed that anyone could misdiagnose bronchitis that badly.)

Suppose it's more that by that point in the examination I'd already pegged him for an asshole, discounting everything he said, and trying to figure out if I'd have time to get home and make an appointment with a competent doctor before business hours ended.
[info]hps_sterling wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 11:50 pm (UTC)
Wow. That had to have been ass. I'm kinda curious what STD looks like bronchitis? ;)
[info]scentofkether wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 12:53 am (UTC)
I'm betting none of them. I think the doctor was operating on the idea that what was really wrong was my sexual orientation ... just like overweight people can't get any answer but "it's because you're fat" out of some doctors no matter what their complaint is.
[info]guttaperk wrote:
Mar. 11th, 2008 04:26 pm (UTC)
STD vs. bronchitis?

That's pretty impressive.
[info]cuglas wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 05:23 pm (UTC)
On the "what killed it" front:

If there's a drug or alcohol problem, and you don't want to live with someone who's actively using, it's probably not going to work out even if the person gets sober. You can try to force the person to get sober, but 90% of the time, even if the person with the problem quits drinking or drugging, there's too much betrayal to make the problem work. Plus, in order to stop using, the user has to change and lots of time people find that they don't like the changes in their newly sober partner. Give it your best shot, if you must, but know that it's probably done.
[info]tacky_tramp wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 10:50 pm (UTC)
Also, even if you "force someone to get sober," you can't force someone to address the issues that brought about the drug or alcohol abuse in the first place. Even if you drive them to meetings of the support group or program if your choice.
[info]llennhoff wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 05:25 pm (UTC)
Vocabulary is a big issue. If someone who wants a polyfidelity gets involved with someone who wants primary - multiple secondary relationships, problems will ensue. If the only language they have is "we both support open marriage" then they may not realize their problem until very late.

There is a much better developed vocabulary for polyamory than there was in the 70s and early 80s. Take advantage of it.
[info]cuglas wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 05:28 pm (UTC)
Ditto, ditto, ditto.
[info]rowyn wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 06:23 pm (UTC)
I would've liked a group relationship, but primary-secondary(ies) still works better than monoamory, for me.
[info]cuglas wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 05:28 pm (UTC)
On "what killed it," part two: If you're new, you need to know that you're not obliged to compete with my current partners to be smarter, taller, cuter, funnier, better educated or have more money. I'm going to date you because I like *you,* not because I'm looking for an upgrade from a current partner. There is no need to "win" against my current partners. You have a collection of traits that I like for itself. I'm not comparing you to my other partner(s). If you insist on comparing yourself and competing with them, I'm going to get annoyed and quit you.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 08:45 pm (UTC)
Jeezus Ghod, yes. And not an insight that usually makes it into the "intro to poly guides," so double-thank-you.
[info]morgaath wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 11:52 pm (UTC)
I think I am going to have to quote you on that.
Often.
[info]rowyn wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 05:52 pm (UTC)
Poly did solve one problem for me: the "serial monoamory" problem, where I dumped my current SO in favor of my next crush. Which happened four times over eight years, before I got into my first poly relationship. Which has lasted eleven, so far. And has certainly had problems, very few of which had much to do with being poly. I still get crushes every year or two, but I no longer see this as a reason why I need to dump the people I'm currently with, for which I am profoundly grateful.

I think my biggest lesson so far is "I hate closets". But I'm still too much of a coward to un-closet as much as I'd like.
[info]phillipalden wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 06:01 pm (UTC)
I've been with Erik for ten years now, and even though we have a "sexually open" relationship, I have no doubts about his love and dedication to me.

I think your primary relationship has to be honest and stable before you bring a third party into the game.
[info]silveradept wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 07:14 pm (UTC)
Having that external reality check, regardless of what your relationship is to another person/other people, is a cause to say "Thank Prime!". If more people had them for whatever relationship they had, I think people would be happier in the long term.
[info]lollypox wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 07:17 pm (UTC)
What do polyfolk do when they have problems?

The same thing monofolk do: Fight or ignore each other.

This doesn't work, btw.

However, here's my nugget of gold:
If you are having an issue, or feel that the relationship is having an issue, when you bring it up there can be a perception that you're having The Breakup Discussion with your partners. Some people have been trained by their past that when Big Discussions Occur, it means Trouble Ahead.

So it can work very well to begin your conversation with your lover(s) with a very simple (and obvious to YOU) statement:
"I'm not breaking up with you. I want to discuss some things before they become deal-breakers, before they become resentments between us, before we hurt each other with the things we don't say. I want to talk to you precisely *because* I love you very much and I want our relationship to succeed."

On many occasions, I have seen people talk past each other because one (or eventually BOTH or ALL) thought that this was the end-game speech. Instead of discussing things openly, rationally, or even with come-together emotion, they start accusing and trying to cover their own asses.

It's awful. It can happen in almost every kind of relationship model I've seen. I have seen relationships end because one person got brave enough to step up and ask for what they needed/wanted, and the other person only heard, "You're not good enough" and took it to mean "I'm breaking up with you" and did the preemptive strike of "Well, we should break up, then."

So if you're the person bringing it up, remind your partner(s) of your love, your desire for closeness, and your willingness to do the work to keep things running smoothly.
If you're the person receiving this kind of request, remember that your partner(s) loves you, and that's why they're talking to you about their hopes/fears/needs/desires.

And if you're too insecure (OMG my partner will BREAK UP WITH ME over this!!!) then do us all a favor and don't date anyone else until you overcome your insecurity.
[info]kinksville wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 11:05 pm (UTC)
I had this happen with a partner once. We were lying there in the after-glow talking and then the next thing I knew we were having a full-blown breakup discussion.

I had made a comment that it was important to me that she be happy not just in the short term but also in the long term or it wasn't going to work (she was/is monogamous).

I hadn't intended it as a "You have X amount of time to shape up or I dump you." but that's sure how she took it! And when she thought that the conversation was going there, the gloves came off and the claws came out and by the time she left that night, I figured we WERE breaking up, and wasn't completely unhappy about it.


[info]satyrblade wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 08:13 pm (UTC)
Thanks, Brad! May I link this?

I second the remarks above. In my experience (and almost every one of my relationships has been polyamourous at some point - many of them for the duration), the keys to enduring love are:

A: COMMUNICATION - open, honest, loving, respectful, compassionate and as non-hurtful as possible. (*)

B: CONFIDENCE - because no relationship model can "complete" you, "fix" you or "heal" you. That's work you must do internally. Until then, your insecurities will undermine, poison, control or weaken any form of relationship.

C: TRUST - without this, any mode of relationship is a ticking time bomb.

D: COMPASSION - an honest effort to not only hear but feel what another person is going through and grok where s/he's coming from. Note that this does not mean letting your partner get away with murder because s/he "has a good reason" for behaving badly; indeed, true compassion includes the ability to walk away rather than continue a vicious cycle for that other person... or for yourself.

E: HONESTY - because lying to your partners or yourself undermines, the previous qualities.

This post/conversation belongs on the polyamoury community. I've seen plenty of folks there who could benefit from it!


-------------------
* - Note: "Communicate" means "to share between." Note the "share" element - it's not a weapon! This differs from "radical honesty" in that some "truths" are too hurtful to reveal without careful consideration, reflection, discretion, compassion and tact. "I'm just being honest!" is the battlecry of spiteful, insecure, defensive people in any mode of relationship; more often than not, it's an excuse to hurt someone and feel morally superior for doing so.

And sometimes - as shown in the surprisingly fine film Sleeping Dogs Lie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492492/), there are "truths" that benefit no one in their revelation. Better to reflect on the potential profits/losses of that sort of honesty, and be very careful about how, when and to whom you pursue it!
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 08:44 pm (UTC)
You may. People always have permission to link to stuff in this blog. I need more inbound links; after that December break, I'm no longer in the top 100,000 most linked to or referenced blogs on the Internet.
[info]satyrblade wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 09:53 pm (UTC)
Thanks. Will do!
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 12:57 am (UTC)
If you didn't want it to link specifically to your comment, halfway down the page? You might want to edit the link over there, deleting everything from the question mark on.
[info]damiana_swan wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC)
(referred here by [info]satyrblade, who has been pimping your journal to me for months now)

The main things I would add to Satyr's list above are:

F: INTEGRITY - keep the agreements you make or renegotiate them; don't just blow them off. Don't try to slip through loopholes or lawyer your way out of keeping an agreement.  If you don't behave in a trustworthy manner, pretty soon people will stop trusting you.  Duh. Oh, and expect that people within the community will be talking to each other. If you consistently behave in a way that lacks integrity, it's going to get around.
G: ASK FOR WHAT YOU NEED - asking for what you need is *always* appropriate.  There's no guarantee you'll get it, but if you ask you're much more likely to get at least some of it than if you don't bring it up at all.
H: BE PREPARED TO COMPROMISE - your needs are important ... just as important as the needs of the other people who are involved.  Make sure you know what you can compromise on and still be healthy and what you need to not compromise on, and then hold those boundaries.  Oh, and don't expect other people to enforce those boundaries for you; that's your responsibility.
I: DEFINITIONS - everyone has their own individual definitions; where they differ is the basis for huge numbers of relationship problems.  What is "love"?  What constitutes "sex" and "safer sex" and "making out"?  What is "dating"?  Coming up with a common dictionary of definitions is really important for making sure you each understand what the other person is saying.
[info]tacky_tramp wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 10:42 pm (UTC)
I was just going to suggest H, with the possible addition, "Be prepared to not get what you want -- a lot."

This is something I have always struggled with in relationships (and school, and career ...). When I want something, to hell with anyone or anything that stands in between me and it! Which is, um, not a helpful attitude when the thing I want is time with New Shiny Boy and meanwhile Long-Term Boy is a bit squeamish and asking me to take a breath and slow down. No, dammit, I want NSB NOW and I will BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN if you suggest I not have him immediately!!!
[info]damiana_swan wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 11:00 pm (UTC)
Yup! And thus H(1)--differentiate between "need" and "want". I *need* to be treated with respect. I *want* to have things all my way. I can deal with having things happen in a way that doesn't give me everything I want if I'm being acknowledged and respected and treated as important.
[info]tacky_tramp wrote:
Feb. 21st, 2008 10:48 pm (UTC)
For the love of all that is good and holy, don't date someone who can't at least sit down and have a beer* and discuss the Sox** with your other partners. I'm fine going out with poly-newbies, but if they can't handle the actual physical reality of my other lovers, there's a drama-bomb in the mail.

* insert beverage of choice
** insert commonly known and relatively neutral topic of choice***
*** upon further consideration, the Sox may be a poor example of this
[info]scentofkether wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 11:48 am (UTC)
Yeah, we tend to avoid the topic of baseball 'round here unless we want a screaming argument ... my friends are divided three ways into fanatical-Sox-fans, fanatical-Yankees-fans, and uh-they-play-hockey-right?

Which brings up another point worth mentioning.

The Geek Social Fallacies are required reading. Here in Beantown the geek, pagan, and poly circles orbit each other very closely ... and all three are "outsider cultures," which is who the GSFs really apply to.
[info]minidoc wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 03:34 pm (UTC)
about the fat people, doctors bit. Yes this is true. But some of us docs also know that that obesity can cause some problems to be worse like osteoarthritis however, I do not beleive that it alone is the root of all medical problems. (I also did note that you said most docs, not all. ;))

If we do not document that we talked to a patient about their weight issues, we run the risk of being sued for not telling the patient and the insurance companies also give us grief. Same thing with smoking.

I think that some docs may use the above as a cop out to get you out of the office faster because to really work on getting to the root of problems takes longer than the alotted "5-10 minutes" allowed in the typical office appointment. The current economics of the healthcare system make me sick. No one really has enough time to get their problems truly worked on and bandaids so to speak, frequently get applied until it all falls apart and you get admitted to the hospital.
[info]lil_mischif wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 04:56 pm (UTC)
You sound like you have a lot of information on this subject. And I am apparently in need of much information. How would you like to get together with me to talk? Maybe sometime next week? It would mean a lot to me.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 05:47 pm (UTC)
Sure. At the moment I'm free Sunday through Thursday.
[info]lil_mischif wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 07:23 pm (UTC)
Cool! I have your number, so I'll call you soon.

BTW, what is your awake schedule like these days? You know, so I don't call when you're asleep.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 08:40 pm (UTC)
Almost completely random. But I'm pretty reliably awake in the afternoons.
[info]lil_mischif wrote:
Feb. 22nd, 2008 09:45 pm (UTC)
Great! Then expect my call some time next week, after noon. And I will plan on meeting you at your place. From there is up to you.
[info]domesticmouse wrote:
Feb. 25th, 2008 11:41 am (UTC)
Thank you for that, it's just what i needed to hear.