poly in the Post

[much_ado]

Washington Post runs a relatively-positive post about poly relationships.

one passage in particular hit me in light of my own recent noodlings about modern therapy:

But as people are increasingly expected to self-actualize clear to the grave, what are the chances that they'll pair up with someone who is on the exact same path of discovery

Comments

[3ravensringo]

One of the Great Questions appears to be "What are we entitled to, anyway?"

It seems as though it was a simpler thing in prehistoric times. Did you kill that mastodon? Ok. It's all you...Unless I fight you for it, and win.

Are we entitled to anything, on a Maslov's hierarchy sort of level? I mean, we get air for free, but almost everything else requires some sort of effort on our part...Like hunting that damned mastodon.

It may be as basic, depending on the culture in question, that we're entitled to the fruits of our efforts. So, if complete romantic fulfillment is what you want, and you're willing to work to get it, then you're entitled to enjoy the results of your labor...Unless our laws and culture intervene in some way.

Bah! Where's the mastodon?!

[redsash]

Exactly. The word "entitlement" implies some higher power handing out perks. You get what you can grab.

~r

[lightcastle]

So you don't believe people are entitled to rights?

[redsash]

You're using passive voice. Who gives people rights?

~r

[curgoth]

The concept that one deserves complete romantic fulfillment seems a decidedly Me Generation concept

There is definitely a generational view of trying to maximise fulfillment/satisfaction/happiness in a relationship. It makes sense to view polyamory as a way to try to attain that. What keeps sticking for me on that quote, though, is wondering what the alternative is? How much romantic fulfillment is one supposed to be satisfied with, and what's the corresponding payoff?

[redhotlips]

This view of maximum fulfillment/satisfaction/happiness is prevelant n all areas of life for Gen X, Y and Milenials. I study this extensively as it relates to the workplace, and it applies there too.

[lightcastle]

Exactly. The idea that you get to be fulfilled in all things is kind of new, if I understand.

[corbet]

> They believe, as do some evolutionary biologists, that most humans do not have endless capacity to be faithful to just one person.

Really? We do? Geez, I shoulda read the small print when I signed up. :(

As with all generalizations, this one strikes me as off the mark. I personally think that many people are capable of monogamy, and happy within that structure. I'm just not one of them. Let everyone love as they will, as long as everyone leaves their judgements at the door.

[lightcastle]

Yeah, but you aren't typical poly. Lots of poly people believe all monogamists are lying to themselves. Lots of monogamists think all poly people are selfish twats. Nature of the beast to judge. And what about poly-fidelity? Is it "not real poly" if poly believes all people are always potential lovers? What about primary/secondary hierarchy? Is it just a holdover of the monogamist trap?

[kseniia]

See, this is the kind of story I would like to write someday.

That said, reading the article pinged a bunch of things that you yourself have talked about time and again, like mindful communication. Makes me think that being poly opens you up more to communicating better and more openly.

[much_ado]

what hel's getting at is that it isn't an issue of being poly versus being monogamous that makes one better or worse at communication. i know as many people who "do poly" poorly because of poor communication practices, as i know people who "do monogamy" well because of good communication practices.

even from the inside, it gets really old really fast, running into the hubris-laden attitude of "we're better because we're poly"; ghods know, i got knocked off that particular pedestal often enough.

[meirwen]

Why is it that articles/posts/comments like this/these have an astonishing ability to push every single one of my "just nuke'em buttons"? Unfortunately, I'm unsure of my target--I only know I want something to go up in a huge fireball. Heaven help us if I ever get a target lock. (I'll let you and your hub know in time to get to a bomb shelter though. Collateral damage is not my thing. Promise.)

[much_ado]

getting people to think outside the box is a double-edged Damoclean sword: (a) at least they're thinking about it and *trying* to put some kind of positive context to it, but (b) they're stil doing it from within their own standard-no-deviation-from-norms context of what is/isn't morally "right". personally, i try to give 'em credit for *trying* to accept that maybe there are other ways of doing things for some people, and grit my teeth to get through the cultural whitewash that colours everything they write with their own value systems.

nuking them for "getting it wrong" or even "not getting it all right" is no better than the generations of *us* being nuked for getting it wrong by *their* standards.

baby steps. they may not lead far enough, fast enough, but at least they're not "standing still", culturally, either.

it's something.

[meirwen]

Ah, but see, the problem is that I don't know who deserves nuking more, them, us, both?? That article was more "inquiring" in the best sense than most on the subject from the mainstream. But comments in response to it, both inside and outside, demonstrate all those "button pushing" attributes to perhaps even a higher degree than the article itself.

My ambivalence, apparently, knows no bounds. Fortunately, I also seem to have ennui, so the world is safe. For now.

[lightcastle]

Yay ennui!