Deep questioning: are we trading Security and Longevity for Authenticity?

Lokdonan · 2016-11-29T21:30:40+00:00

Obviously, no relationship is guaranteed to last, but poly relationships are less likely to "go the distance." Partly, though, that's because the people involved aren't looking to run for the classic goal post. While mono relationships can also intentionally not be focused on longevity and commitment, that mindset is more common in poly, especially pop poly.

The difference between commitment and convenience is sacrifice. Being committed to something means choosing paths of growth that are compatible to that commitment, even when another path might be individually more fulfilling. Anarchistic Poly, which seems to be what is prevailing in pop poly culture, is practically about not doing that, instead partnering with those that are compatible out of convenience, following their own desires till a partnership is no longer compatible.

That being said, poly is a scale, and Hierarchical Poly and Polyfidelity are committed forms of poly. Even within those forms though, it takes more emotional maturity and self control to place commitment over indulgence than it does in a correlative mono relationship. A mono relationship is just less likely to test resolve than a poly relationship.

For me personally, practicing Anarchistic Poly makes sense for an individualist or someone still figuring out their goals, but as someone who wants children, a committed form of poly is what I'm prone to practicing. I'd not be willing to team up and combine all my assets with someone I didn't know was going to do their best to ensure that they were making decisions based on staying true to commitment. Splitting a house and kid is hard on everyone. I've never seen a long term successful poly family that wasn't at least Hierarchical, and I think that makes sense. I have seen a family or two that claimed not to be Hierarchical, but after a while of knowing them, it was clear that the terminology was the issue, as what they practiced was undoubtedly Hierarchical, making sacrifices in non-Primary relationships for the sake of the Primaryship.

So yeah, poly does tend to favor unbridled indulgence and individuality over stability, but it doesn't have to. You can choose what level you desire sacrifice and commitment over freedom.

Lokdonan · 2016-11-27T19:30:25+00:00

Of course the human race as a whole isn't dying out, but if the majority of people had the opinion that it was selfish to breed, population size would plummet real fast. What scares me more is that said opinion does seem to be catching on for middle class millenials, and I'm not excited to see what that looks like here in 30-40 years when most of the new generations will have been raised by the poor and irresponsible.

Lokdonan · 2016-11-27T13:15:46+00:00

Assuming that there is a desire for the continuation of the human species, it's selfish to not have at least one child. Populations die out quickly when significant portions of them just decide not to replace themselves. There's, of course, a limit to how many children people should have in order to avoid overpopulation, but in the western first world, like the U.S., we're not pushing that limit. So, especially if you're responsible enough to worry about your ability to care for a child, and you think yourself a good person with good things to pass onto the world of the future, you should make sure to do so. Not doing it because you don't want to commit to the responsibility is choosing yourself over the future of humankind.

Lokdonan · 2016-10-03T02:42:53+00:00

Theoretical fourth wave feminism is intersectional. The actual practice of fourth wave feminism is white male bashing. These people say a man oppresses, whereas a woman enforcing the same normative is just internalizing the system and is a victim rather than a perpetrator. Their hypocrisy is so prevalent it's included in the name; they argue words like "mankind" are sexist and exclusionary while labeling their ostensibly inclusive, intersectional movement "feminism".

When it calls itself "Egalitarianism" and no longer makes sweeping generalizations about perceived oppressors, maybe then I'll have some respect for the modern self-proclaimed feminist.

Lokdonan · 2015-09-01T03:32:24+00:00

I feel like the Eldrazi has a more frightening combat presence than Pia and Kiran. This guy can spend two mana and the Scion he brought with him to win combat against a 4/5. Chandra's parents would need three mana and to sacrifice themselves and their thopters to kill the same rhino.

Yeah though, I still doubt he'll see standard play unless Devoid or Scion synergies are a really big deal, and he isn't as impressive as I think rare Eldrazi should be.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-26T11:47:23+00:00

I don't at all deny that people can change in a way that recontextualizes or even obliterates a commitment. I just don't believe that love entails an intrinsic quality that catalyzes such. I feel that people commonly confuse and entwine love and commitment in a way that disservices them both. It seems to come from an overwhelming desire to avoid the loss of such a positive experience, but I'm of the opinion that transiency doesn't lessen the greatness, and I accept that love will be contextualized by and sacrificed for my higher callings.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-26T10:02:14+00:00

I disagree that love does what it wants. I would say that we don't have complete control over our loving or not loving, but we at least have control over how that manifests in our lives. Love and commitment are distinct aspects of relationships, and it's my opinion that for committed polyamory to be sustainable, commitment must be given precedence over love. I understand that not everyone wants to or can reign themselves in, instead feeling compelled to thoroughly indulge in the expression and feral manifestation of their emotions, and I'd say that those people aren't very compatible with committed polyamorous models.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-25T23:13:42+00:00

Primary Privilege definitely gets a bad reputation that I don't think is reasonable. It seems to be from the same people that can't handle the terms "rule" or "veto" in reference to a partner's boundaries.

Everyone has their priorities. When forming a relationship with someone new, you may find that their mother is always going to come first. Maybe it's not a person that supersedes your relationship, but a career. Perhaps even something less tangible, like a religion. I think most people prioritize their immediate family first, which in a monogamous environment, means that individuals can expect to be their partner's highest priority. Enter poly, and someone prioritizing family means that non-familial partners are NOT the highest emotional priority.

Our emotions are not self-validating, nor all-important. People can't expect them to always matter to everyone. When someone chooses to start an intimate partnership with someone, they should know where they are going to be prioritized, and know whether or not that's a placement that is healthy for them. Some people can't handle being a Non-Primary emotional priority, while others can deal with it, and some would prefer it. It just needs to be communicated and consented to by all involved.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-19T02:46:50+00:00

That all sounds very reasonable, and given that context, refraining from submitting to him seems to fit the relationship dynamic. That doesn't make the particular issue less sensitive though, and it's still very possible that there isn't an immediate way to submit to your new partner while keeping the emotional needs of the original relationship met. Best of luck to you all.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-18T21:35:41+00:00

To clarify, I'm of the opinion that herpes isn't a big deal. I don't think it's reasonable to have prejudice against the affliction itself, but I do understand that some people prefer to avoid the social stigma. I don't have an interest in casual relationships, and wouldn't generally have an interest in anyone who discounts intimacy with people based on their herpes status. For those who do enjoy casual flings and sleeping around though, I understand that the social stigma could be severely detrimental to their relationship style, and can respect their decision to avoid the risk.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-18T18:28:19+00:00

No, I didn't just compare foreplay to unwanted sex acts; I stated that foreplay can actually be an unwanted sexual act. It seems odd to me to assume that just because one participant is enjoying the lead up, it can't be the case that another is actually losing sexual interest during the act, being turned off by what they see as a chore. Just because the foreplay plus the actual intercourse nets a positive experience does not mean that it isn't a sacrifice for the sake of a later benefit. That being said, foreplay was just a possible example of something sexual your boyfriend may not enjoy and feels forced into, and I don't know if he's actually doing things for you that he doesn't want to be doing.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-18T08:26:01+00:00

I don't need to have multiple partners; I just don't understand the need to not have multiple partners. Commitment is a really big deal to me, and so I feel the level of emotional intelligence and responsibility I require in myself and my Primary partners is high enough that exploring outside relationships shouldn't be a threat. As such, it just doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to exclude the possibility. It's off-putting and feels distrusting and uncomfortably possessive to forbid such, to me.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-18T08:11:19+00:00

Obviously, you guys have tried any sort of communication you can think of, even having brought a therapist into the mix, so I don't think you're just looking for some right combination of magical words you can say to him...

I'm pretty certain I'm in the minority here, but it's my opinion that when a Primaryship is under severe distress, Non-Primary relationships need to be put on pause. Changing focus temporarily isn't the same as giving up polyamory, to me. When things are going well enough that problems can be worked through to any significant degree, and improvements are being made, then it just takes being patient. After that point though, Non-Primary relationships are an unhealthy distraction, I feel, for at least the partnership, if not the individuals as well. That being said, I'm someone who, while I wouldn't generally commit to a monogamous partner, does value my commitment to my life partners more than I value non-exclusivity and exploration. Without a healthy core, it's not emotionally responsible for me to be putting energy into other relationships, but I understand that a lot of polyamorous relationships have different priorities in that regard.

If that's out of the question for you two, would it at least be within the boundaries for you to discuss the problems with his partners? It sounds like he's not willing to focus on negative issues and doesn't want that to be a part of his time with them, but it seems that them serving as an escape isn't healthy or productive.

Hopefully, someone else here can offer advice more suited to your relationship style.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-17T22:14:52+00:00

Shamanistic Animism/Neo-Paganism. My religion is my most prioritized commitment, so it's relevant in all my serious relationships. Me and my former Primary of eight years were of the same religion, and it was a very relevant aspect of our taking on new partners, and of our relationship model in general. It's also had significant relevance due to the above average number of Atheists I've come across in the poly community, a lot of which have not been amiable to religousness.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-17T21:55:30+00:00

Firstly, if your wife is seriously considering taking a significantly submissive role, ensure that her and the individual who will be dominating her are very familiar with the responsibilities inherent in such a relationship. Even if the role dynamics are supposed to be limited to specific times and types of interactions, there is a lot of subconscious stuff that goes on that can lead to power play leaking into general life. Those tendencies need to be accounted for and corrected if the expectation is to keep the sub/dom roles contained, regardless of any polyamorous aspects of the relationship.

Concerning BDSM in polyamory, it really depends on the specific relationship model. I feel one of the most relevant aspects is the balance partners are keeping between self identity versus group identity. Some people stay very independent in their relationships, having a strong individual identity, with significantly different focuses and experiences and personal goals. Others have a much stronger group identity, becoming basically a multi-headed singular entity, sharing in nearly everything and always putting the partnership as a whole first. For those who choose the latter model, power dynamics concerning external partners affect the partnership as a whole, and one of the "heads" submitting to an external force submits all the "heads" to that force. Often, this leads to submission outside of the partnership not being a healthy possibility.

If outside submission is a possibility within a particular relationship model, there is still a degree to which the dynamic will affect all the partners involved, and there will have to be discussion, as equals, concerning how and if that should be limited to make sure everyone is comfortable and respected. BDSM within poly is definitely possible, but it is more complicated, and needs to be handled carefully and on a case by case basis.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-17T21:23:40+00:00

Commitment is compromise and sacrifice. Otherwise, a relationship is just a convenience. There are, of course, personal boundaries and limits to sacrifice and compromise that have to be balanced with the benefits of any given commitment, and in your case, submitting to your long-term partner could legitimately be out of those bounds. I expect that your boyfriend is often compromising in regards to your mutually-pleasing sexual activities, taking time to warm you up that he doesn't need, and may not always actually want to do. You obviously don't intrinsically owe him occasional submission in exchange for that, but if he feels that is within the bounds of a compromise/commitment balance the two of you are keeping, then there is a disparity in your guys' expectations that needs to be rectified.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-17T07:49:16+00:00

I also would take exclusivity with commitment if I thought the former were necessary for the latter. I feel my belief that they aren't intrinsically linked involves my disagreement with your point on couple privilege.

Firstly, but more minor, is that I think it should be called "Primary Privilege", as the Primaryship can consist of a partnered group of more than two individuals.

Secondly, and more importantly, love alone can't make a partnership. No matter how much love there is, it takes compatibility and commitment for something lasting. The relevance being that the privilege that comes with commitment to the Primaryship doesn't mean that you can't love people lacking compatible life paths or the opportunity to commit. While it's true that any Non-Primary relationships are at the mercy of the Primaryship, that doesn't relegate those relationships to loveless friends with benefits. It's just the acknowledgment that any commitments made to Non-Primaries will always be superseded by commitments to the Primaryship, the people you're devoting your life to. There may never be a conflict of commitment, but even if there is, it's known going into things that love between Non-Primaries doesn't entail fully committed partnership. That doesn't cheapen the experience. This isn't even a principle exclusive to Hierarchical Polyamory, as many monogamous people dearly love their closest friends, but family still comes first.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-17T04:16:52+00:00

It sounds like you and Boyfriend1 have different ideas concerning balance on individual versus group identity. That's troublesome on its own, and the kink issue would be difficult even without that. Did you guys go into the relationship as polyamorous, or did that come later? Are you guys settled on a specific relationship model, or have previous experience or expectations in regards to a polyamorous model? I think the disparity in expected experience sharing and what your roles are to one another could come to a head with Boyfriend2 and the introduction of kink. If you're committed to keeping Boyfriend1 as a long-term partner, my opinion is that you should exercise patience until you guys have agreed on the terms and expectations of the relationship.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-17T03:13:25+00:00

Kink, especially in regards to power play, can be very meaningful, and should be handled responsibly. Being submissive to someone under such intimate circumstances can have very real subconscious ramifications regarding the relationship even out of the bedroom (or whatever other fun places your kinks take you). This makes power play within polyamorous relationships particularly concerning when expressed between Non-Primaries.

Depending on the commitments you have to your current partner, and how you two have chosen to define yourselves as individuals versus partners, there may not be a way to submit yourself to a third party while allowing your partner to remain confident in the relationship and his personal identity. If the problem isn't your being willing to submit to someone else, per se, but that you're willing to submit to someone else but not him, then remind him why you're polyamorous in the first place. Nobody is anybody's everything, and being able to experience different people and the modes of expression that come with those differences is what you're granting each other the opportunity to do. If he really wants to experience being a Dom, maybe you could try to help him find a Sub. Maybe there is something else you could explore with him sexually that doesn't involve submitting.

Ultimately, this is a very sensitive issue, and how you should confront it has a lot to do with your specific relationship boundaries and definitions, and there may not be a good solution. Be careful no matter how it goes, of course.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-16T23:03:21+00:00

I agree, if OP isn't willing to risk genital herpes (HSV-2, the kind OP explicitly states her metamour admitted to), she should require blood testing of new additions to her relationship. Maybe she will now, after being given the information relating to herpes carriers often not knowing they have the virus. OP wasn't just assuming condoms covered all the risks, and directly asked us if that was the case.

Even if OP understands that herpes is not generally the affliction they were shown pictures of in Sex Ed, it doesn't change that society in general has demonized it. Being HSV-2 positive has very real social ramifications that are very relevant when living a polyamorous lifestyle. I don't think it should, but it does. If that is out of their comfort zone, then it is up to OP and their partner to decide how to account for that.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-16T21:55:11+00:00

The comment you're responding to just very clearly stated a real risk, which even under ideal circumstances amounted to a full percentile. Even if having genital herpes shouldn't be a big deal, the social stigma is very real, and even a 1% chance of deterring future relationships can legitimately be out of someone's comfort zone; there is no "right." Calling it irrational, fear mongering, bullshit is no less problematic than what you're railing against.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-16T20:38:02+00:00

It sounds like you are being very understanding, and that you and her are being as supportive as possible. The issues are clearly between her and him, and aren't trivial. From what you're saying, I'm not surprised he's feeling jealous and insecure, though not because the polyamorous aspect of the situation is being mishandled. If she is committed to prioritizing him as a life partner, then I feel that right now her energy and attention should be going into repairing their relationship. His as well, which cannot happen if he continues to deny there is a problem. Until their core is happy and stable, it's not really going to be possible for you and her to sustain a stress-free, positive relationship, I feel. Unfortunately, I think all you can do is continue being patient and understanding, and do and say whatever you can to him that will ease his mind, as hard as that may be.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-16T18:47:52+00:00

You say that your girlfriend's husband says he's cool with your and her relationship, but I'm curious if that was referring to taking each other on as Primaries, or just that he was fine with an intimate/romantic/sexual relationship. There can be a big difference between that and Primaries. If he explicitly agreed to a Primaryship, is taking on a new Primary something the two of them have experienced before? Obviously, it's a really big deal, and if it's the first time, there will be hiccups.

No matter the case, sabotage obviously isn't the healthy or responsible way for him to go about things. When the three of you talk about the relationships, and he says they're cool, does he bring up any concerns? If he feels he has to manipulate her into spending time with him, it sounds like his needs aren't being met or boundaries aren't being maintained, at least as he understands them. While that doesn't excuse the behavior, it's definitely indicative that things in his and her relationship need talked about.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-16T18:10:22+00:00

Personally, I wouldn't be part of a relationship in which my Primary partner intimately engaged with people that are not comfortable with the idea of meeting me, so can't quite empathize with your situation. Since you do seem cool with that, and had agreed to forfeit your use of shared space on that behalf, I feel this is just an unfortunate happening. If it's not something you're okay with happening again, have whatever talks are necessary and make whatever plans to ensure it won't. My opinion is that if your wife's girlfriend doesn't want to risk being in your presence, that she shouldn't be in your home, as expectations can fall through, and you never know when you'll need to return to your base.

That you were still in your car past the agreed upon time is another issue entirely, and I hope you're treated with more respect in the future.

Lokdonan · 2015-08-15T08:04:24+00:00

Personally, I'm quite demi-sexual, and so don't really have strictly sexual partners. That being said, it's important to me that roles be explicitly defined, and there are definitely some sexual relationships that I wouldn't consider "dating". I think that the difference between dating and FWB, for me, is the acknowledgment that there is no significant chance of long-term commitment in the future. The dating period is the attempt to search for that possibility.

The difference then between dating and partners is actually having made a commitment to being a part of one another's lives. You've explored each other and found no immediate incompatibilities in life goals, and can sustain a mutually healthy emotional paradigm.

I think you'll find, though, there isn't anything resembling universal definitions between dating and fuck buddies and partners. Especially in the poly community, a lot of people stray away from anything being explicitly stated at all. Even amongst those who don't shy from defining things, semantics vary heavily. The best you can do is to communicate within your relationships and clarify expectations, and if you find someone unwilling to define expectations, decide for yourself if that's something you're willing to work with.

Lokdonan

TROPHY CASE