Polyamory Revisited
Excerpted from a post in "Porn and Relationships". I cut out the porn stuff. =P I added a sentence that I didn't put in the original post because it was getting way long while being off-topic. And then I cut an entire paragraph from that post, but left it here. =P
As in just about every single relationship I've ever taken a look at, the problem is that the communication isn't working properly. (I'm actually convinced that every social problem is ultimately a communication problem. And while I decided this before I started studying information, I wouldn't be surprised to learn I'm seeing everything in terms of nails for my hammer.)
I believe in polyamory: a web of however many persons involved with one another however they like with as much commitment as they like contingent upon the comfort of everyone involved. In other words, it's a normal society with a very standard and very acceptable "Do no harm" clause. I do not understand the need for extra constraints (types of sex, number of partners, gender of partners, types of interaction, etc.) on any kind of relationship, except in terms of power and control. If any involved person is uncomfortable, then it needs to be opened up, talked about, and resolved. I only noticed after I wrote that sentence that I didn't say "uncomfortable sexually": that's because the sex is irrelevant. Hell, I don't even believe that a resolution necessarily means "staying together": that's another unnecessary constraint.
Where I get this stuff: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/ (Especially #5.)
Recap:
1. A relationship exists between any group of two or more people.
2. Any group of two or more people has at least one relationship amongst themselves.
3. The nature of a relationship is dependent upon the comfort of the involved parties.
4. The nature of any relationship should not be a secret to any other party.
5. Discomfort is the primary, and probably only, indicator of problems.
6. Discomfort should be resolved through clear communication. An inability to engage in clear communication is almost certainly a sign that either a third party should be brought in (read: therapist; read: mutual friend) or the relationship terminated.
And by "relationship", I am not referring exclusively to sexual, romantic, or platonic ones. I abstract this to business (read: non-personal) relationships, FOAFs, all the way up to cross-organization relationships and international relationships. Granted, at the more-than-one level, it gets tricky to understand and agree about what "comfort" means.
But I think that's a fairly decent discourse.
*sings* London Bridge is falling down...
My fair lady! (Wikipedia: link. 50 points for each of the three allusions you figure out without clicking on the link. 10 for each you figure out after reading the article. 100 for any allusion I made unintentionally.)
P.S. I know there are problems with my abstraction. Brownie points awarded for spotting any I know about. Real points (which are just as useful) awarded for spotting any that I don't know about.
As in just about every single relationship I've ever taken a look at, the problem is that the communication isn't working properly. (I'm actually convinced that every social problem is ultimately a communication problem. And while I decided this before I started studying information, I wouldn't be surprised to learn I'm seeing everything in terms of nails for my hammer.)
I believe in polyamory: a web of however many persons involved with one another however they like with as much commitment as they like contingent upon the comfort of everyone involved. In other words, it's a normal society with a very standard and very acceptable "Do no harm" clause. I do not understand the need for extra constraints (types of sex, number of partners, gender of partners, types of interaction, etc.) on any kind of relationship, except in terms of power and control. If any involved person is uncomfortable, then it needs to be opened up, talked about, and resolved. I only noticed after I wrote that sentence that I didn't say "uncomfortable sexually": that's because the sex is irrelevant. Hell, I don't even believe that a resolution necessarily means "staying together": that's another unnecessary constraint.
Where I get this stuff: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/ (Especially #5.)
Recap:
1. A relationship exists between any group of two or more people.
2. Any group of two or more people has at least one relationship amongst themselves.
3. The nature of a relationship is dependent upon the comfort of the involved parties.
4. The nature of any relationship should not be a secret to any other party.
5. Discomfort is the primary, and probably only, indicator of problems.
6. Discomfort should be resolved through clear communication. An inability to engage in clear communication is almost certainly a sign that either a third party should be brought in (read: therapist; read: mutual friend) or the relationship terminated.
And by "relationship", I am not referring exclusively to sexual, romantic, or platonic ones. I abstract this to business (read: non-personal) relationships, FOAFs, all the way up to cross-organization relationships and international relationships. Granted, at the more-than-one level, it gets tricky to understand and agree about what "comfort" means.
But I think that's a fairly decent discourse.
*sings* London Bridge is falling down...
My fair lady! (Wikipedia: link. 50 points for each of the three allusions you figure out without clicking on the link. 10 for each you figure out after reading the article. 100 for any allusion I made unintentionally.)
P.S. I know there are problems with my abstraction. Brownie points awarded for spotting any I know about. Real points (which are just as useful) awarded for spotting any that I don't know about.