Comments | tacit: Some thoughts on needs, objectification, and the Magic Genitals Effect

tacit

Some thoughts on needs, objectification, and the Magic Genitals Effect

Jul 04, 2012 16:47

If you venture into the polyamory community for long enough, eventually you will encounter someone who says "Polyamory is good because no one person can meet all of your needs. With poly, I can find different people who meet different needs, and so be happier ( Read more... )

philosophy, relationships, polyamory

Comments 40

much_ado July 5 2012, 00:04:11 UTC

This...

This... is...

This is so fucking brilliant I... have no words.

mellyjc July 5 2012, 00:39:46 UTC

Perhaps it's my rationalization talking, but I think there's a fine line between acknowledgment that "I have needs" that I prefer another human fulfill and "my partner is required to meet my needs". Certainly it's easy to fall into the granted-taking of partners that they are frequently there for that. I've actually observed, I think, granted-taking as the desirable piece in a relationship for some, and there was all this offense taken when a request was made. Not that he didn't want to meet the request, just offense that partner felt the need to ask for it ( ... )

bminstrel July 5 2012, 09:15:26 UTC

I think we also suffer from the bad workman blaming his tools effect. If the relationship didn't work it must be because they were faulty, otherwise we might have to accept some sort of responsibility for it in ourselves and find some way to learn, change and improve. And that's daunting.

Better to buy a new toaster and rant at our friends about how every one of our toasters has burst into the flames if we forget to empty the crumb tray.

mellyjc July 5 2012, 18:43:47 UTC

Yes, it's sad that it seems there's so much shame around not being perfect that to admit any fault at all is impossible. That's the biggest challenge in getting clients to stay in therapy (or not blame and even consider it might help THEM), is their willingness to face the need for change instead of bail and stay miserable.

davidlnoble July 7 2012, 16:59:13 UTC

"... but I think there's a fine line between acknowledgment that 'I have needs' that I prefer another human fulfill and 'my partner is required to meet my needs'."

I don't see it as a fine line, but that's because expectation management and boundaries are a huge focus for me. I agree with you if you are addressing a societal norm, but I think that is an indication of where the problem lies.

I like what you said, and don't actually disagree with what you said, it's just that this ought not be a "fine line". We should be writing it bold and painting it in bright colors so that children understand it, as part of normal social development. I do see this discussed in other contexts but I don't see it discussed within the context of romantic relationships. Who teaches that? Schools? Nope. Parents? Well, ideally. So it's the media.

I guess that means we need Joss Whedon to write more stuff.

Thread 7

Then why have a partner? anonymous July 5 2012, 02:41:52 UTC

So if we don't have partners to fulfill needs, why do we have them?

Re: Then why have a partner? horsetraveller July 5 2012, 11:53:49 UTC

When you've had a break-up and are living by yourself for a while, you come up with an answer for that.

Re: Then why have a partner? stevenredd July 5 2012, 21:57:53 UTC

Because your needs are your responsibility. Your happiness, your needs, your fulfillment....those are things you need to take care of. If you don't know how to do and make those things, no one else in the universe can do it for you. I am with my partners because we share our happiness together and share our fulfillment. My needs getting met are a product of my effective communication: "Hey, I wanna do this...do you? Shall we do that together?"

Re: Then why have a partner? benndragon July 6 2012, 02:52:37 UTC

To connect with a fellow human being on a very deep level. Everything else is window dressing.

Thread 5

Good essay lastmx July 5 2012, 07:25:43 UTC

Interesting take on things. I'm not poly, but you've given me a new lens to look at my relationships (past and present) through.

Needs and Obligations bminstrel July 5 2012, 09:06:29 UTC

I'm going to start by defending the "one partner can't meet all my needs," line, which I admit I sometimes use as a clumsy shorthand. Simply put, I don't think any of my partners are obligated to meet my needs any more than this glass of water is obligated to quench my thirst.

I do have needs¹, but it's up to me to find a situation in which they're being met. It's not something I parcel up into little chunks of responsibility for other people.

Actually, as it happens, I am lucky enough to have people who want to meet my various needs and conveniently I also want to help meet theirs. That's because we're human beings, not just selfish need-machines. There is a difference between what we want or are prepared to give and what we are expected to give, but I don't think it nullifies the (admittedly badly worded) "No single person can meet all of my needs," line of reasoning ( ... )

Re: Needs and Obligations vconaway July 6 2012, 12:25:45 UTC

I really like your water metaphor.

Re: Needs and Obligations tacit July 9 2012, 21:48:30 UTC

On much of the rest of this, I agree (and could do verbosely but won't). I'll just say that the problem with genital-rubbing is that society has made it special and almost sacred, when it really isn't. Our conventions strangle our feelings and instincts and we end up in a confused muddle, but the attachment of aspects of morality to it makes it hard to talk about.

Indeed. That is, I think, very, very true. It's difficult to go about interacting with other people in a reasonable way and negotiating to have your needs met when you're too ashamed to talk about them in the first place.