This December 26 column by Mistress Matisse discusses the business of "rules" in polyamorous relationships. It is, possibly, one of the best and simplest commentaries on the subject that I've ever seen.
I think it is a very common evolution that people who are new to polyamory create great lists of rules and agreeements and expectations. It is a way to help alleviate some of the uncertainty and anxiety that is a fairly common part of the beginning of poly for many people.
Very early on, we had all kinds of schedules and calendars and methods for equalizing things and keeping score and whatnot. As we moved along, those things came to feel cumbersome and artificial and we eventually let most of the "accepted" patterns of poly practice go. They just didn't work for us. Over time, we came to develop habits and routines that made sense for us as family and partners and lovers. We started to recognize what fit our personalities, our styles, our legitimate and actual needs, and designed our lives to match those things -- rather than investing a lot of energy into what Mistress Matisse, so aptly calls "symbols."
We get a lot of sort of nervous and anxious questions and poking about from non-poly readers and commenters, who are made quite uncomfortable by the seeming "uneveness" of some of what they read about in our lives. It is easy to endow the symbols of equal minutes, or calendar dates, or place with far more weight than the less easily grasped relational currencies of respect and affection and intimacy and kindness and generosity and loyalty. Those deeper ties between us are so difficult for people to sense that it is the norm for them to want to evaluate the strength of our bond based on the more superficial "dating" stuff of relating protocols.
I believe that there is a real lack of understanding of how real poly loving works when the partners get beyond the place of being mostly fearful. If the relationships really work and the partners come to actually care for one another and mesh as a group or a unit, there is very little reason to fall onto flimsy and artificial symbols.
swan
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this. Both the piece by Mistress Matisse, and your posting set out something I've tried more clumsily to explain for a while now.
ReplyDeletelove and hugs xxx
Again, you have said things very eloquently and being that i ended a very long term Poly relationship (mind you it was a vanilla relationship) years ago, i found that the crucial understanding that where one person lacks in one area, it seems to be that the other partner fills that void. If that is not the case for ALL involved, i find eventually someone is pushed from the equation by another who finds your presence cumbersome and threatening. You have again ID'd why many peopole see Poly relationships (from an outside point of view) as uneven... but for us... it is rewarding and fulfilling.
ReplyDeleteI think the most important word Swan used there was "Mesh".
ReplyDeleteIf the people in a relationship do not mesh past the initial (and insecure) stages, there really is no other end but a breakup somewhere along the line.
The amount of people involved, or for that matter the nature of the relationship is irrelevant, really.
grumblin!!! Hugs! I just checked in at your blog today, and found you gone. I thought that you were gone and had no idea how I might find you again... I am so glad to see you here. Please, if you have time (and are willing) drop an email and let us know how you are.
ReplyDeleteIt is so good to hear from you.
swan