Dan Savage FTW Again

[petite_lambda]

Most of my problems with monogamy are not with monogamy per se, but with the way that it is commonly implemented. For example, a big pet peeve of mine is the unrealistic expectation that people in happy relationships will never be attracted to someone else. Dan Savage rants about it here much better than I would (in reply to a letter from a woman

Comments

[petite_lambda]

"So the new crush makes the partner feel justifiably threatened"

No, not justifiably, in my opinion. If, when your partner is excited about someone, you automatically interpret it as "so he no longer wants me, then" -- that is the problem. It's a non-sequitur! Attraction is not a zero sum game. There are many exciting people in the world. Having crushes only means that everything is all right -- with your eyes, heart and mind. The ability to recognize awesome people for what they are -- that ability doesn't magically go away when we are coupled. And it's not a bug, it's a feature. It's not a problem -- not in you, not in the crush, not in the relationship. It's just not a problem at all.

"I don't see how one can keep up with the level of excitement in a many years long relationship."
And one doesn't need to. There are many things more important than excitement, anyway. I'm not sure that what Danny and I have after nine years together can be called "excitement". I don't call it that way. It's more of a joy. Every time I see his face I feel like a puppy, just wanting to jump around him and lick him :-) It's not excitement, just happiness... the feeling that life is what it is supposed to be, you know? It's confidence. It's knowing that he completely understands me. It's continuously learning this world together. It's many things... but excitement it's not. And the thing is: whatever it is, I love it exactly the way it is! [Btw., the way to maintain all these things is just keep talking. It's that simple.]

I also happen to have a serious crush on another person. So, is that guy better than Danny? It's a silly question! Two good people can't be compared like that. Obviously, he's better in some respects, worse in others, like all people... but mostly, he's neither -- he's just different. The real question that you refer to isn't who is better, it's "would you rather live together with Danny or this other person?" And the answer is Danny, 100%. The other person I just want to spend some time with -- a few hours a week, ideally, maybe a day. And that's the most important thing to understand: my partner is, as you said, "comfortable and always there" and that is much more important to me than anything the other guy could ever give me...

That's why Danny doesn't feel threatened. A crush doesn't mean I want to leave him! All it means is I have new excitement in my life to share with him!

But that bit in the end was the poly perspective. The mono perspective (the one that works, anyway) goes something like this: "We are going to have crushes on other people, and it's normal. The big gift that we promised to each other is to never act on these feelings. Yes, it's going to be very hard sometimes! But we are ready to do it for each other." When people look at it like that, they can support each other through the hardest times, instead of becoming alienated at just the worst time possible.

[leosapiens]

Yeah, but how do you know for sure that what this other person has is not actually better than what you have? Enough for your partner to leave you for them? That maybe you lack what that person has, and all the comfort and security is not enough to cover for how damn boring you are to them, in face of this new danger.

I dunno, trust like that is more like a belief in yourself and that what you have to give pwns other things. Not easy to have. So I'd prefer to not hear about crushes, if there are any. Just.. Let them be, and go away, and I'd prefer my partner, and hell, myself, to know that while it's natural to have these feelings, it's necessary to kick them while they're starting, and feel they're wrong. To keep what you have. Cause people are never secure enough not to be threatened, and fear can kill whatever good you have.

[petite_lambda]

I agree on one thing -- it's not necessarily a good idea to tell your partner about your crushes. That certainly is not for everyone, and if you're with someone who rather would not hear about it, then they shouldn't have to hear about it. It's common curtesy, and your partner should do the same to you.

I disagree about the rest, though:

"... all the comfort and security is not enough to cover for how damn boring you are to them, in face of this new danger"

But I know I'm not boring. Discovering other people who are also interesting (even if they are much smarter than me, and incredibly awesome!) is not going to suddenly make me boring in Danny's eyes. That's confidence.
"trust like that is more like a belief in yourself and that what you have to give pwns other things" -- no, that last bit is exactly wrong. I know that Danny values a lot what I have to offer, and that nobody in the world can give him that -- but not because I'm better than everybody else (I'm so not) -- it's because I'm different. People (good ones) are not replacible.
(It works in both directions, btw. That other guy I'm in love with -- Danny can not replace him for me. That just doesn't work.)

"Yeah, but how do you know for sure that what this other person has is not actually better than what you have?"
Well, I'll tell you how Danny knows -- how he knows that I wouldn't want to leave him and come live with K. instead. He knows because I tell him everything. Sometimes other people are threatening because we don't know the details, so we imagine the absolute worst. But when we shed light on the monster, we see it isn't as scary as we thought. Danny knows everything, so he understands exactly why K. and I are totally incompatible on many levels.
Your next question is probably going to be "But what if you were compatible? What if your next crush is someone with whom you really could live together? Would Danny feel threatened then?"
The answer is that he still wouldn't, but that has to do with poly. The reason Danny wouldn't be afraid that I'll leave him is because he knows I wouldn't have to. Why choose if I can have both? :-)

[petite_lambda]

I do enjoy spending time with other people, I just enjoy spending it with Danny as well. I don't see how meeting someone else will make me enjoy Danny any less... It's not like with mobile phones, where if you see the next generation iPhone you suddenly understand that what you have now is total crap and you don't want it anymore, and you have to upgrade. It doesn't work like that with people. [Actually, that's another one of my problems with monogamy. Mono people commonly have the iPhone model of relationships -- "My partner is with me now only because he doesn't know any better, and as soon as he meets someone better he'll upgrade and kick me to the curb." I think that's very sad.]

The real question is how do I divide my time, and couldn't it cause problems -- particularly in the beginning of a new shiny relationship, where I might be more inclined to see the other person quite a lot...

[petite_lambda]

I sense a hidden assumption there, that goes something like this: "as long as you always give Danny at least 51% of your time, you're all okay, but 50% is not enough".

Time management is a major issue in relationships -- not necessarily poly relationships. For example, are you going at some point to have another child? If so, how do you know that you won't love him more than the first one? How do you know that you wouldn't want to spend more time with him than with his brother? How will you deal with his brother's jealousy? The answer (my guess) is that as parents, you will love all your children and you will do your best to spend as much time with each of them as they will require. Sometimes it will be more or less equal, sometimes not (people have difficult times when they require more attention, for example).

It's exactly the same answer with poly. I'm giving all the people I love all the time that I can and want to give. So far, so good... Why am I sure that a day won't come when I will want to spend way too much of my time with someone new for way too long? I'm not 100% sure! But it's highly unlikely, simply judging by what happened so far. When I meet an awesome person, my first instinct is to talk to them, and my close second instinct is to run and excitedly tell Danny all about it :-) I guess it can change. But I don't see why it should.

"Are you looking into all other possible relationship as secondary to your main relationship?"

No. Some people do that, but not us. More precisely: we use the terms "primary" and "secondary", but only in a descriptive (not prescriptive) sense.

[petite_lambda]

Ah, I think I understand what you mean. If your definition of primary is "the romantic partner that you cohabit with and spend the most time with", then, yes, Danny is my only primary partner, and I don't think it will ever change (possible, but highly unlikely).

Actually, I agree with that definition... I just don't like using the word "secondary", because for some people it implies that I don't care for or respect the other person as much as Danny (e.g. here).

[petite_lambda]

Absolutely right. (Again, "not actively seeking" doesn't mean it cannot happen... but it's unlikely.)

[petite_lambda]

Whoa: if they don't admit it between themselves, that's a whole different can of fish :-) Although I often jokingly use the term "semi-open relationship" for such cases ("they have an open relationship, but his wife doesn't know it" :-))

People practice some different variants of it. Unfortunately, this awesome chart doesn't have numbers on it, so we don't really know which ways are more common. But I suspect that our variety is far less common than Don't Ask Don't Tell, for instance (not to mention cheating...)

[vicariance]

well it's not unique ;)

[petite_lambda]

You mean poly, or cheating? ;-)

Anyway, it seems to me that you know a lot more non-monogamous people than I do, so maybe you can answer this question better. What was your impression, among the non-monogamous folks, what are the percentages of poly/swingers/DADT/others?

[vicariance]

I meant your variety of poly. Like the chart makes very clear, people behave many different ways, but the majority of those variations come because of insecurities, imbalances, power differences, whatever: expressions of their imperfectly balanced, egalitarian, and/or ethical minds.

But I suspect that most anyone who DOES maintain a balanced, well-organized mind, who is fully honest with herself and with her partner(s), with whom they make the choice of "Embracing 1 and treating 2 as a problem", will settle into something at least very similar to what you have with Danny. All the most respectable minds in the poly community I have known, are rocking relationship constructs quite similar to yours. As am I.

Now while I am a man about town, and I have certainly come across many varieties of non-monogamy close-up and personal. It's a community that is pretty damn minor. The main proportionality analysis I would venture is that most people I have known to practice non-monogamy don't label themselves for the practice. So that would make the "dating around" category alot bigger than it seems in the picture, I think; along with its overlap into "cheating".

I have met very few swingers, and those few I have met were of the polyfidelitous variety. I have only heard of key parties in stories. Though I have definitely been present for more than my share of spontaneous orgies, soft and otherwise.

But if OkCupid is any guide. The BY far most common form of self-labled polyamorists are the unicorn hunters. *sigh* As any bi-sexually labeled at least semi-cute girl with an okcupid account can tell you, cyberspace is crawling with those fuckers. hehe, pun!