Thinking about Definitions and "Us"

I've been thinking a lot about "us." Thinking, in the sense of "definition." Definition, as in the sort of careful descriptive kind of characterization that an old fashioned botanist might have done in the days of Darwin or Thoreau.

I think we've done that. I think we know about those outlines and boundaries and characteristics and details. I think we understand the "ins" and "outs" of our relationships and dynamics, and I think we've gotten pretty good at making those things clear to ourselves and to those outside our family boundaries with whom we choose to share the details. Usually, we use the word "poly," or "polyamory" to describe our relationship, but I've started wondering about whether using that umbrella expression makes things clearer -- or less clear.

And then, kaylem at Once Bitten wrote a "book report" about the sort of classic, everybody knows it and reads it, "Bible" of the polyamory world -- "The Ethical Slut," by Dossie Easton: http://keeperandkept.blogspot.com/2006/01/book-review-ethical-slut.html

I remember reading the book, when I was first learning about poly as an idea. I remember digesting the information there, stretching to encompass the language, and internalize the ideas. I wasn't "here" yet, in my current relationship when I read it, but I was considering, and thinking and moving and growing in my thinking and trying to understand.

But "poly" as the community uses the language, covers a lot of territory. What I've found is that there are relatively few who do what our family does. Very few who combine power exchange with poly in a relatively closed and somewhat fidelitous, heterosexual model. It is a construct that requires a fair amount of balance and a good bit of energy. Frankly, we don't find much support for it in the alternative community -- anymore than we do in the mainstream community. Lots of people don't see us as poly precisely because of the heterosexual factor, and/or because of the fidelitous choice that we make in most cases. We are the "poly" configuration that makes everybody in the community uncomfotable.

We're not closed. We have some selective openess. Those of you who follow us here have seen us open up, and stretch the boundaries, but that is not an every weekend event. That is not an event that devolves because any one of us is out at any given moment seeking to create new relationships. We are a stable relational family. Each of us have the limits and boundaries defined by our proclivities and our dynamic. Some find that difficult to understand or comprehend. It is what it is. We have a power exchange dynamic. He is more free than I am (or than T is). It is what it is.

What is odd, though, is how frequently, we find strangers who come to us and hear us say, "this is who we are," and then try with great effort to make us into something else. Happens with regularity. Always it is something that we shake our heads over, say well we aren't really like that, we are like this. Always the folks, say, "oh I know, but..." Same song, over and over. Inevitably, we end up saying, "come, visit. We like to meet new people. We are glad to teach and share and make friends." No subterfuge. No promises to be other than or different than or changed from what is advertised. We're much too old to transform. What you see really is what you get.

Still, I think, people do that old trick of hearing hoof beats and imagining zebras, when in fact it is just horses. Always. Plain, old, garden-variety horses.

Maybe it is "us." Maybe we need to be more definite. More cautious. More suspicious and less open. We know who and what we are. When we find those who are curious, open, willing to relate, maybe we need to be more careful about saying -- don't come here if you have any scintilla of expectation of us. Nothing is available from us for you. Because it really does seem like no matter how clear we are about who we are, people persist in wanting to project onto our family some sort of shimmery possibility that we will match up with an imagined "magic" kingdom that can take in and embrace all comers. If it doesn't happen, it is inevitably seen as our failure. That doesn't seem fair.