[poly] when the only thing you have left to fear is fear itself... you're still fucked
on account of some Stuff happening here on the home front, matthew and i have been revisiting - with the intention of possibly reworking - some of our foundational understanding of how to manage non-primary relationships, in the areas of rules, expectations, rights, responsibilities, and powers.
when you look at it in those terms, it becomes readily apparent - we really don't do anything by halves around here.
taking a page from tacit, i've had reason to ask myself lately, what are rules intended to protect? what am i afraid of?
it always comes back to my history, and my fear of being surpassed and replaced in the seat of primacy. because that loss of primacy is something i won't countenance with my partner, that would be, for me, the death sentence for the relationship. i am neither prepared nor willing to accept less than primacy from my primary partner, so because the fear of perceived rejection and abandonment hits me on such a deep level, my biggest fear is in perceiving any change in state that looks like my position is being challenged.
unfortunately, because of History, it really doesn't take much to look like something that triggers those existential or ontological fears, and remember here, the key lies in the perception, not the actual behaviours or motivations of the parties involved, only my perception. so my rules have evolved as a protection of Self against Other, where Other seems to be receiving attentions and whatnot that *i* receive, because if we're all getting the same thing, then what is it about my relationship that makes it/me special, makes it/me primary? personally i'd like to think there's more to the "primary" label than the legal bondage of marriage (pun intended), and that's the bulk of the reason why my poly structure has always been hierarchical: there are rights and privileges and powers ascribed to ranks in the hierarchy, with the implicit understanding that the higher up you are, the More you have.
where the theory is falling down is that, having never clearly articulated what said rights and privileges and powers actually entail, it should come as no surprise - except it always seems to come as a BIG SURPRISE - every time matthew and i run into differences of interpretation or expectation when one of us exercises (or fails to exercise) one of those rights or privileges or powers in a manner that surprises the other.
and as we've already ascertained, at least for ourselves, Surprises = Bad Shite Falling Down on People's Heads.
when we started dating, matthew and i each initially did some homework on identifying our respective needs. mine are here. mine are all structured toward the primary relationship, as i believe are matthew's, though he may have been construing his around "relationships" in general as opposed to differentiated towards different types of relationships; i'll have to ask him about that. we haven't done the same degree of work to clearly identify the needs being met by non-primary relationships, nor make explicit the expectations we have for them, nor the privileges granted to them... nor the rules by which we presume ourselves able to interact with them. some of this work has been done, but it has recently become clear that we're operating on old data and assumptions built on old data, both of which are causing problems within our current relational landscape.
it's not news to identify that rules are boundaries drawn to protect the vulnerable areas; it *is* something of a novelty to realize that even after all this time, i'm still afraid. i still need those rules, i still need some sense of power and authority. i perceive enough instability in the primary relationship to find that i'm reluctant to yield those security blankets, even if they are illusory, ephemeral, ineffective (in their implementation or in the joint understanding of their nature and purpose). as matthew pointed out in a recent conversation, "Just because a security blankie is a blanket, doesn't mean it's going to be any good at keeping you warm; but then again, that's not its purpose." the rules are, in effect, my security blanket. they shape my expectations and tell me what i can expect under what circumstances, and justify my responses when i perceive a transgression of those rules, and therefore my security (or so i tell myself). rules are like massive power tools: they're great when they work and you handle them carefully and consciously, but when you stop paying attention or treat them carelessly, you can lose important limbs.
but if you take away the rules and the attendant power and authority, you further undermine the perceived stability and my sense of place in the relationship. that's why matthew and i can't just shuck off all the old rules and start from scratch: it would leave me insecure and vulnerable in ways that are inarticulable in their Badness for my sense of well-being. i need something i can hang onto with one hand while doing the work of reshaping the structural integrity of my place in the relationship with the other. freewheelin' through poly relationships would probably drive me away from them completely. in the end, for whatever reasons, i'm just not that secure. and knowing that isn't half the battle; it's not even digging the first trench. it's equivalent to having this vague feeling that the Kaiser maybe shouldn't go out for the parade today in case something bad happens. it's the kind of thought that makes me wonder *why* the hell i've worked so hard over the last twenty-five years to *be* poly, and why the hell aren't i better at it by now? is having sex with other people really worth it? (these, by the way, are rhetorical questions, though the last one is difficult to answer in any sense, given how rarely it happens. no, i'm not whining. at least, not in this post.)
all of this is discussion at the meta level about "why 'nora can't let go of her authority", and the need for rules to protect the deep-rooted fears. this doesn't get us any further towards identifying what rules we need to maintain (between ourselves or with our lovers), nor what power and authority and privileges and expectations and all that other stuff i mentioned above will actually *be*, but as i learned from tacit, there's not much point in designing protections until you know what it is you're trying to protect. as much as i get frustrated with Not Having Solutions RIGHT NOW, i have come to appreciate the effort-saving notion of laying foundations properly before you build the structure over top of them. as much as i would love to be able to wave the Magic Poly Wand and have the universe drop in my lap a set of rules i can just hand out and say, "These are the rules; obey them, or find someone else to sleep with", i know there's more to it than that, on some level.
the road of my history is already littered with the metaphorical bodies of those who transgressed rules they (and to some extent, even i) didn't know existed: soldiers in a war they didn't know they were fighting, ripped apart by trip-wired land mine explosions they didn't see coming. with others poised on that same brink even now, it would be awfully nice to have some good news for a change, news that looks more like "hey, we have a workable solution we hope you can live with" and less like "this station is off the air until we fix our internal support issues". but as we've got little to offer those in the wings without doing the homework - from the foundations, up - the best i can offer is, "we're working on things; please be patient while we try to locate and remove some more of those land mines, and keep your flak jacket and helmet handy at all times... just in case."
when you look at it in those terms, it becomes readily apparent - we really don't do anything by halves around here.
taking a page from tacit, i've had reason to ask myself lately, what are rules intended to protect? what am i afraid of?
it always comes back to my history, and my fear of being surpassed and replaced in the seat of primacy. because that loss of primacy is something i won't countenance with my partner, that would be, for me, the death sentence for the relationship. i am neither prepared nor willing to accept less than primacy from my primary partner, so because the fear of perceived rejection and abandonment hits me on such a deep level, my biggest fear is in perceiving any change in state that looks like my position is being challenged.
unfortunately, because of History, it really doesn't take much to look like something that triggers those existential or ontological fears, and remember here, the key lies in the perception, not the actual behaviours or motivations of the parties involved, only my perception. so my rules have evolved as a protection of Self against Other, where Other seems to be receiving attentions and whatnot that *i* receive, because if we're all getting the same thing, then what is it about my relationship that makes it/me special, makes it/me primary? personally i'd like to think there's more to the "primary" label than the legal bondage of marriage (pun intended), and that's the bulk of the reason why my poly structure has always been hierarchical: there are rights and privileges and powers ascribed to ranks in the hierarchy, with the implicit understanding that the higher up you are, the More you have.
where the theory is falling down is that, having never clearly articulated what said rights and privileges and powers actually entail, it should come as no surprise - except it always seems to come as a BIG SURPRISE - every time matthew and i run into differences of interpretation or expectation when one of us exercises (or fails to exercise) one of those rights or privileges or powers in a manner that surprises the other.
and as we've already ascertained, at least for ourselves, Surprises = Bad Shite Falling Down on People's Heads.
when we started dating, matthew and i each initially did some homework on identifying our respective needs. mine are here. mine are all structured toward the primary relationship, as i believe are matthew's, though he may have been construing his around "relationships" in general as opposed to differentiated towards different types of relationships; i'll have to ask him about that. we haven't done the same degree of work to clearly identify the needs being met by non-primary relationships, nor make explicit the expectations we have for them, nor the privileges granted to them... nor the rules by which we presume ourselves able to interact with them. some of this work has been done, but it has recently become clear that we're operating on old data and assumptions built on old data, both of which are causing problems within our current relational landscape.
it's not news to identify that rules are boundaries drawn to protect the vulnerable areas; it *is* something of a novelty to realize that even after all this time, i'm still afraid. i still need those rules, i still need some sense of power and authority. i perceive enough instability in the primary relationship to find that i'm reluctant to yield those security blankets, even if they are illusory, ephemeral, ineffective (in their implementation or in the joint understanding of their nature and purpose). as matthew pointed out in a recent conversation, "Just because a security blankie is a blanket, doesn't mean it's going to be any good at keeping you warm; but then again, that's not its purpose." the rules are, in effect, my security blanket. they shape my expectations and tell me what i can expect under what circumstances, and justify my responses when i perceive a transgression of those rules, and therefore my security (or so i tell myself). rules are like massive power tools: they're great when they work and you handle them carefully and consciously, but when you stop paying attention or treat them carelessly, you can lose important limbs.
but if you take away the rules and the attendant power and authority, you further undermine the perceived stability and my sense of place in the relationship. that's why matthew and i can't just shuck off all the old rules and start from scratch: it would leave me insecure and vulnerable in ways that are inarticulable in their Badness for my sense of well-being. i need something i can hang onto with one hand while doing the work of reshaping the structural integrity of my place in the relationship with the other. freewheelin' through poly relationships would probably drive me away from them completely. in the end, for whatever reasons, i'm just not that secure. and knowing that isn't half the battle; it's not even digging the first trench. it's equivalent to having this vague feeling that the Kaiser maybe shouldn't go out for the parade today in case something bad happens. it's the kind of thought that makes me wonder *why* the hell i've worked so hard over the last twenty-five years to *be* poly, and why the hell aren't i better at it by now? is having sex with other people really worth it? (these, by the way, are rhetorical questions, though the last one is difficult to answer in any sense, given how rarely it happens. no, i'm not whining. at least, not in this post.)
all of this is discussion at the meta level about "why 'nora can't let go of her authority", and the need for rules to protect the deep-rooted fears. this doesn't get us any further towards identifying what rules we need to maintain (between ourselves or with our lovers), nor what power and authority and privileges and expectations and all that other stuff i mentioned above will actually *be*, but as i learned from tacit, there's not much point in designing protections until you know what it is you're trying to protect. as much as i get frustrated with Not Having Solutions RIGHT NOW, i have come to appreciate the effort-saving notion of laying foundations properly before you build the structure over top of them. as much as i would love to be able to wave the Magic Poly Wand and have the universe drop in my lap a set of rules i can just hand out and say, "These are the rules; obey them, or find someone else to sleep with", i know there's more to it than that, on some level.
the road of my history is already littered with the metaphorical bodies of those who transgressed rules they (and to some extent, even i) didn't know existed: soldiers in a war they didn't know they were fighting, ripped apart by trip-wired land mine explosions they didn't see coming. with others poised on that same brink even now, it would be awfully nice to have some good news for a change, news that looks more like "hey, we have a workable solution we hope you can live with" and less like "this station is off the air until we fix our internal support issues". but as we've got little to offer those in the wings without doing the homework - from the foundations, up - the best i can offer is, "we're working on things; please be patient while we try to locate and remove some more of those land mines, and keep your flak jacket and helmet handy at all times... just in case."