I generally am not a fan of rules-based relationships, particularly in polyamory. I have found, throughout all of my relationships, that they tend to work best when not governed by a codex of regulations that would make a bureaucrat blush.
Often, when I say that, folks will look at me as though I’ve sprouted an extra head. “How can you have a relationship without rules?” I’ve been asked by poly folks. “I mean, sure, that’s all well and good if you just want anarchy, with people running around doing whatever they want with no commitment, but you can’t build real relationships that way!”
Which is a bit of a head-scratcher to me, because it sounds quite a lot like a monogamous person telling a poly person “How can you have a relationship without monogamy? I mean, sure, that’s all well and good if you just want anarchy, with people running around shagging whoever they want with no commitment, but you can’t build real relationships that way!”
It’s a normal human thing, I suppose, to see the world in polar terms: if there is no monogamy, then that means promiscuity and indiscriminate shagging; if there are no rules, then that means anarchy and chaos. But that isn’t really the case.
What do you mean, that isn’t really the case? Rules are how we set out boundaries. Without rules, there’s nothing to keep people from stomping all over us!
I tend to see a big difference between “rules” and “boundaries.” To me, a rule is something that a person imposes on another. “I forbid you to have un-barriered sex with any other person” is a common example. It is a statement of intent to assert control over the actions of another.
Boundaries are things we put on ourselves. “In order to protect my sexual health, I reserve the right to discontinue having sexual intercourse with you if you have unbarriered sex with any other person” is an example.
They might have the same outcome, but theiy’re very different in philosophy. To me, the key difference is the locus of control. With rules, I am assuming control over you. I am telling you what you must do or setting out what you are forbidden to do. With boundaries, I outline the way your choices affect me, without presuming to make those choices for you, and let you make your choice accordingly.
But without rules, how can I make sure that my partner will do what I need him to do in order to feel safe?
You can’t.
With or without rules, you can’t. People can always make their own choices. Rules, as anyone who’s ever been cheated on knows, are only as good as a person’s willingness to follow them, which means rules are only as good as the intent of the person on whom they’re imposed.
If a person loves you and cherishes you, and wants to do right by you, then it’s not necessary to say “I forbid you to do thus-and-such” or “I require you to do thus-and-such.” All you really need to do is communicate what you need to feel taken care of, and your partner will choose to do things that take care of you, without being compelled to.
On the other hand, if your partner doesn’t love and cherish you, and doesn’t want to do right by you…well, no rule will save you. The rules might give you an illusion of safety, but they won’t really protect you.
So what? Isn’t it enough that a rule makes me feel better? What’s wrong with that?
There is, I think, a hidden cost to rules, which doesn’t often get discussed in the poly community: the effect those rules have on other people.
Often, people in polyamorous relationships–especially people just starting in polyamory–seem to embrace the idea that whatever happens, as long as the original couple survives, the relationship is being successful. Regardless of its effect on anyone else who may be romantically involved with one or both of the original couples. Because of that, the rules tend to be created only between the original couple, with little or no input from anyone else, and more imprtantly, little or no thought to the impact on those rules on others. The viewpoint of any third parties is rarely considered.
Because of that, there’s seldom an acknowledgement that any rule which forbids person A from doing X is potentially a rule which deprives newcomer C from activity X. You see this most strongly in rules such as “I forbid you to have sex with any new partner in the Monkey with Lotus Blossom and Chainsaw position, because that’s my favorite position” or “I forbid you to go to Clayton’s House of Clams with any other date, because that’s the restaurant where we had our first date” or “I forbid you to sleep over at a partner’s house because I never want to have to give up sleeping beside you.”
Each of these is made without any thought to what it costs a third person–what if a new person happens to be quite fond of the Monkey with Lotus Blossom and Chainsaw position, or Clayton’s House of Clams? Why should the new person always be forced to give up sleeping with a partner simply because person A never will?
Because that’s the way it is! Why should some new person be allowed to trump my needs and stomp all over me? Why shouldn’t a new person respect my needs?
Ah. And there we get down to the heart of the matter.
People pass rules because they feel that those rules are necessary in order to meet their needs. Rules don’t get passed at random; I have yet to meet a person who makes up rules by rolling dice or drawing words out of a hat.
Whenever someone proposes a rule, I make it a habit to ask myself three questions:
1. What is the purpose of this rule?
2. Does the rule serve the purpose it is intended to serve?
3. Is this rule the only way to serve this purpose?I can’t overstate enough how valuable it is to think about this.
Often, in my experience, people use rules as indirect, passive ways to try to get their needs met. Instead of clearly articulating the need, such as “I have a need to feel special and valued by you,” they will think of something that makes them feel special and valued, and then pass a rule to say “I require you to do this thing” or “I forbid you to do this thing with others.” We in the poly community often talk about “communicate, communicate, communicate,” but to me, communication requires the willing to discuss difficult issues, such as the direct needs that we have, rather than just second-order issues, like “Forbidding you to do this is important to me.”
Let’s take a non-hypothetical example of a rule that I’ve seen some poly folks do: “I forbid you to take any date to Clayton’s House of Clams.” And let’s look at it within the context of these three questions.
1. What is the purpose of this rule?
If Alice tells Bob “I forbid you to go to Clayton’s House of Clams with anyone else,” what is she actually saying? It could be “I feel like my value to you depends on exclusivity.” It might be “I am afraid that if you do the same things with someone else that you do with me, you won’t need me any more and you will abandon me.” Chances are pretty good, though, that Alice, in making this rule, is feeling so overwhelmed by her fear that her needs aren’t being met, she hasn’t spared any thought at all for Cindy, who she’s now denying the Clayton’s clam experience to.
2. Does the rule serve the purpose?
If Alice is right, if Bob doesn’t truly value her and there’s nothing special about her, then forbidding Bob to go to Clayton’s House of Clams with his date won’t actually ensure that Bob doesn’t abandon her. If Cindy turns out to be “better” (whatever that means) than Alice, then Bob’s gone, clams or no clams. If Bob genuinely DOESN’T see value in Alice, the relationship is doomed and no rule will save it. By saying “I forbid you to go to Clayton’s House of Clams,” Alice is–at best–buying herself a false sense of security that is masking her underlying fear of abandonment, preventing her from confronting it directly.
3. Is this rule the only way to serve this purpose?
If Alice is actually afraid that Bob doesn’t value her and will abandon her if he does the same things with a new date that he does with her, then it seems to me that Alice is actually better served by confronting that fear directly, and asking directly for Bob’s help in feeling valued. There might be a lot of ways that can happen…by spending more quality time with Alice for instance, or by letting Alice know how he values her, by setting aside “date nights” with Alice, all sorts of things. The underlying need actually has nothing to do with clams at all.
So what? I was here first. Why shouldn’t a new person respect my rules, even if there are other ways to do things?
“Respect” is a slippery, tricky word. It’s kind of like “freedom”–everyone thinks they know what it means, but when the rubber meets the road, few folks actually agree on a definition.
To me, respect has to be mutual. If Alice is demanding respect from Bob’s new sweetie Cindy, that can only come if Alice in turn respects the notion that Cindy is a grown adult with her own needs and desires, and she, too, deserves a shot at having a voice in the relationship. Imposing rules by fiat on other people and then demanding respect from those people is all the rage (I hear) among leaders of North Korea, but can feel a bit yucky when we’re talking romantic relationships.
But more pragmatically, because I try to be pragmatic, setting up a situation in which one person imposes rules which another person is expected to follow is often a setup for failure. At best, it leads to rules-lawyering; “Well, we didn’t actually eat AT Clayton’s House of Clams, we ordered our clams to go and then ate out on the lanai!”
At worst, it sets up a relationship with a certain amount of tension and conflict baked in. If you see your partner’s other partner as a source of stress, if you set up rules to govern that other person’s behavior, then already you’ve started out on a basis of conflict–because you’ve created an environment where if you want the newcomer never to eat at Clayton’s with your sweetie and the newcomer’s desire is to get down with those tasty, tasty clams on a date with your sweetie, there’s an irreconcilable difference there. Someone’s desire is going to get trumped, and you’re playing the “respect” card to try to make sure it’s not yours.
By talking directly to needs rather than rules–“I need to feel valued and special by you”–we create a framework where competition is less likely. If it’s about feeling valued and unique, and it’s not actually about the clams at all, leave the poor clams out of it!
Now, some cases are more clear-cut than others. Rules around safe sex practices are extremely common in poly relationships; in fact, I’ll warrant that exceptions are pretty thin on the ground.
But even there, it pays to be careful. Open communication is important, because sometimes, even seemingly clear-cut rules with reasonable, necessary purposes can mask deeper things.
For example, let’s look at a rule “No unprotected sex with other partners.”
1. What is the purpose of this rule?
If Alice tells Bob “I don’t want you to have unprotected sex with anyone else,” most likely there’s a pretty good reason for it. The purpose of this rule is plain on the face of it: to protect Alice’s sexual health, as well as the health of everyone Alice is involved with.
2. Does the rule serve the purpose?
Yes. The data on disease transmission and barriers is unambiguous.
3. Is this rule the only way to serve this purpose?
Oh, boy. Now we get into a pickle.
There are other ways that this goal can be achieved. STD testing is an effective one. Sexual health is not an issue if the people involved have no STDs to begin with; they don’t spontaneously appear out of thin air.
But sometimes, folks may insist on barriers not entirely because of STD concerns, but also out of a feeling that it’s a mark of exclusivity, or because they feel more special if they are the only fluid-bonded partner. And sometimes, concerns about STDs can be a cover that masks those feelings. (This isn’t a hypothetical example, by the way. It’s actually happened in my romantic network.)
It takes a lot of courage to admit things like this. Talking openly about what’s really going on below the surface is scary, and hard, and involves making ourselves vulnerable.
But we poly folks talk all the time about how important communication is. It’s even more important that we actually do it. Even when it’s hard. Especially when it’s hard.
And sometimes, letting go of the notion that rules are important is a way to do that, as scary as that sounds.
Thanks again dude.
Thanks again dude.
Good one.
My reason for preferring fewer rules is simple. I seem to get treated better without them. Selfish of me, but there you are.
Good one.
My reason for preferring fewer rules is simple. I seem to get treated better without them. Selfish of me, but there you are.
Thank you! How fabulous to have somewhere to point people who wonder how in the hell a poly relationship without millions of rules can work out. Much more eloquent than the hand flailing and “it just works for me” I’ve been using as explanation all these years.
Thank you! How fabulous to have somewhere to point people who wonder how in the hell a poly relationship without millions of rules can work out. Much more eloquent than the hand flailing and “it just works for me” I’ve been using as explanation all these years.
Beautifully said, as usual.
Beautifully said, as usual.
Rules do serve a special purpose that you didn’t mention (perhaps out of kindness to your gentle readers).
Rules codify the conditions under which and methods whereby we agree to hurt our parters, or be hurt by our partners.
That’s some bad shit, right there.
oh my gosh, Edward. Very succinctly and nicely put.
Rules do serve a special purpose that you didn’t mention (perhaps out of kindness to your gentle readers).
Rules codify the conditions under which and methods whereby we agree to hurt our parters, or be hurt by our partners.
That’s some bad shit, right there.
Tori and I have a rule. “Be open and honest with each other”. That means not lying, even by omission. Pretty much everything else is discussed and negotiated. It works for us because we’re not “rules lawyers”, we’re not politicians, we’re in a partnership and want to do the best for each other.
Tori and I have a rule. “Be open and honest with each other”. That means not lying, even by omission. Pretty much everything else is discussed and negotiated. It works for us because we’re not “rules lawyers”, we’re not politicians, we’re in a partnership and want to do the best for each other.
Very nicely put. I really think it all really boils down to the point you made about how we can’t control others, they will do what they do. I find that is the hardest belief for most people to put aside; letting go of rules requires people to understand that the only person they can control is themselves. It’s scary to think that you can’t stop someone from hurting you, no matter how much you love them.
There is definitely a difference between the boundaries you set for yourself and the rules you impose upon others, you are so very right about that.
Great post! Thank you!
Very nicely put. I really think it all really boils down to the point you made about how we can’t control others, they will do what they do. I find that is the hardest belief for most people to put aside; letting go of rules requires people to understand that the only person they can control is themselves. It’s scary to think that you can’t stop someone from hurting you, no matter how much you love them.
There is definitely a difference between the boundaries you set for yourself and the rules you impose upon others, you are so very right about that.
Great post! Thank you!
Thanks, Franklin. Your thoughts are interesting and valuable. As we discussed on the PLN list, I’ll be linking to your post in my own blog, wherein I’m serializing my efforts at writing a book on the topic of Agreements. (If any of you here are interested in seeing what I’ve written so far, go to my blog and look in the Agreements tab http://blog.unchartedlove.com/?tag=agreements . It’s been a
while since I made a post to that book,but I’m hoping to change that
Very Soon Now.)
FWIW, my own take on Agreements, as drawn from the discussion on the PLN list [I’m planning to take this to my own blog as well, but it’ll probably happen tomorrow. You heard it here first! ;)]:
I’ll agree that my perspective on “rules” has been changing over time. As a general rule, I prefer a style more in alignment with what Franklin appears to espouse (curious word, that, no?). with one partner, my entire “agreements” now consist of “don’t be a dick!” (if we have more “rules,” he “lawyers” them!) However, I still advocate the use of Agreements–which are not exactly the same as rules*–especially when beginning something new, or repairing something damaged. (Time-limited Agreements, or as another person called them, Time-Bound Experiments, are particularly useful here.) They’re also great for clarifying safer sex practices, so long as people don’t confuse emotional safety and physical safety. Some people need more structure than others, and for those who need a lot of structure, it’s way better to talk about those structures and AGREE to them, than for one partner to unwillingly or perhaps even unconsciously impose them on another.
In short, I consider Agreements to be a TOOL to help partners increase trust in each other, and increase feelings of comfort over the long-term. Although I recommend writing them down (especially for those of us who are memory-impaired!), just having the DISCUSSION about what all of these things MEAN to each partner can be a very helpful exercise, and provide almost as much (or in some cases more) benefit as having a codified set of Agreements.
As Barry [Smiler in Baltimore] mentioned, it’s very much about creating the win-win-win. And if, during the discussions about the Agreements, you find that you’re having a hard time *agreeing* with one another? I’d consider that to be something of concern indeed. Perhaps the relationship isn’t a good one to get your needs met, and your partners’ needs met, at the same time.
*I make a strong distinction between Agreements and “demands” (closer to Franklin’s use of the word “rules”, I think). Agreements require all parties to AGREE to them and can be renegotiated. Demands are inherently non-negotiable, and are generally issued by one party without the other/s’ input.
not sure if this is precisely related, but it seems relevant and Hi Dawn!
I think communication is really important and understanding what people you’re in relationship are *expecting* from you, even if the goal is not to set up “rules” or make “demands.” It is possible that the person you want to be with has needs you can’t meet, or fears you can’t soothe.
I had a partner whose model of polyamory required that I would take on no other sexual partner until he had spent enough time with the new person to get to know him and feel friendly with him. Not only do I have a different poly model than that, I couldn’t even come up with a way to be flexible enough to make things work with this partner. And, the worst thing is that we had never discussed this issue (can you tell I was a poly newbie at the time?) so I ended up violating his trust without intending to, and then being told I was doing poly wrong. 🙁
So, be sure you talk about visions of how things will go and what each others’ needs are, and do it before you get so deep in that you’re risking mutual heartbreak.
Thanks, Franklin. Your thoughts are interesting and valuable. As we discussed on the PLN list, I’ll be linking to your post in my own blog, wherein I’m serializing my efforts at writing a book on the topic of Agreements. (If any of you here are interested in seeing what I’ve written so far, go to my blog and look in the Agreements tab http://blog.unchartedlove.com/?tag=agreements . It’s been a
while since I made a post to that book,but I’m hoping to change that
Very Soon Now.)
FWIW, my own take on Agreements, as drawn from the discussion on the PLN list [I’m planning to take this to my own blog as well, but it’ll probably happen tomorrow. You heard it here first! ;)]:
I’ll agree that my perspective on “rules” has been changing over time. As a general rule, I prefer a style more in alignment with what Franklin appears to espouse (curious word, that, no?). with one partner, my entire “agreements” now consist of “don’t be a dick!” (if we have more “rules,” he “lawyers” them!) However, I still advocate the use of Agreements–which are not exactly the same as rules*–especially when beginning something new, or repairing something damaged. (Time-limited Agreements, or as another person called them, Time-Bound Experiments, are particularly useful here.) They’re also great for clarifying safer sex practices, so long as people don’t confuse emotional safety and physical safety. Some people need more structure than others, and for those who need a lot of structure, it’s way better to talk about those structures and AGREE to them, than for one partner to unwillingly or perhaps even unconsciously impose them on another.
In short, I consider Agreements to be a TOOL to help partners increase trust in each other, and increase feelings of comfort over the long-term. Although I recommend writing them down (especially for those of us who are memory-impaired!), just having the DISCUSSION about what all of these things MEAN to each partner can be a very helpful exercise, and provide almost as much (or in some cases more) benefit as having a codified set of Agreements.
As Barry [Smiler in Baltimore] mentioned, it’s very much about creating the win-win-win. And if, during the discussions about the Agreements, you find that you’re having a hard time *agreeing* with one another? I’d consider that to be something of concern indeed. Perhaps the relationship isn’t a good one to get your needs met, and your partners’ needs met, at the same time.
*I make a strong distinction between Agreements and “demands” (closer to Franklin’s use of the word “rules”, I think). Agreements require all parties to AGREE to them and can be renegotiated. Demands are inherently non-negotiable, and are generally issued by one party without the other/s’ input.
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
I’ve always found the “Well, Cindy knew the rules going in, so she could either agree to them or leave” argument to be particularly and especially cruel.
At the start of a relationship, it’s almost impossible to predict in advance how far it will go or what it will look like. It’s easy to agree to rules before your heart is on the line and then find, later, after you’ve fallen in love, that you’re hooked–the rules become burdensome but you’re committed to the relationship and can’t leave without a great deal of heartache.
It’s unintended cruelty on Alice and Bob’s part, perhaps, but it’s still cruel. And Alice and Bob making themselves feel better about hurting Cindy by saying “Well, she knew up front what she was getting into” only rubs salt on the wounds.
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
“It’s unintended cruelty on Alice and Bob’s part, perhaps, but it’s still cruel. And Alice and Bob making themselves feel better about hurting Cindy by saying “Well, she knew up front what she was getting into” only rubs salt on the wounds.”
I don’t think it’s unintended at all.
It’s a clear and lucid explanation, describing the situations and conditions under which Cindy will be disposed of.
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
Yes yes and yes
When you are committed to a person and are crazy in love with them, you will continue to go along with rules imposed on you from the start, because you’re not willing to lose that connection. I can assure you that this does not mean it doesn’t hurt like all holy hell!
🙁
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
Rejecting a form of relationship that you don’t want (with that person, in that context, etc.) isn’t cruel I don’t think? Especially if you were clear that you didn’t want it?
I mean, if I’m clear that I’m pretty obsessed with my job, and sure, I’d like to have a romance with you, but I’ll never spend the weekend with you or go on vacations with you, and yes, I did really like getting flogged once upon a time but now I don’t indulge in that because it opens me up to a level of emotional attachment that I don’t want with anyone because for me it takes away from my focus on my work–
then if you fall in love with me and my unwillingness to become more deeply emotionally involved with you becomes painful for you, I’m being cruel? What, people should never deliberately seek out a light-hearted low-attachment romance? Or, they should be able to divine that the other person is going to “get hooked”, and end things to protect them? Or something?
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
No, what’s cruel is saying to someone “This relationship will always have constraints placed upon it by a third party. That third party has the power to dictate what you can and can not have; the following is a list of things you are not allowed to have. You are forbidden to spend the night with me, you are forbidden to eat at Clayton’s House of Clams with me, …” and then, when those burdens become less and less tolerable as the relationship deepens, turning around and saying “You knew all this when you signed on!” rather than “I see these restrictions are hurtful to you, so let’s talk about how we might make this relationship give you the things that you need.”
Of course, any relationship is voluntary. To a certain extent, this problem is self-limiting. Time and time again, in many different poly communities on both sides of the country, I’ve heard folks say things like “Yeah, back when I was new to poly, I got involved with a couple who had a whole bunch of rules. I’ll never do that again!” Experienced people do, to a statistically significant degree, seem more likely to avoid folks with rules-based relationships.
But it doesn’t change the fact that many such rules-based relationships deliberately set out to disempower newcomers, often under the banner of “I feel safer by disempowering them,” and then blame the newcomers when things go wrong. Sometimes it’s a subtle “Well, she knew the score going in, so it’s on her,” sometimes it’s a more blatant “Well, he didn’t respect me–a *real* poly person would respect me and my rules,” but either way, blame for the newcomer’s unhappiness is placed on the newcomer’s shoulders.
Compassion means striving to find ways to meet everyone’s needs, to make everyone feel heard and valued, and to give everyone a voice in a relationship. When you take that away, yes, I would call the result “cruelty.”
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
In a scenario like mine, with, for example, Bob, Bob’s job, and Cindy, Bob has these rules (no vacations, no flogging, etc.) regarding his relationship with Cindy because he wants them, he thinks they’re good for him, and he’s trying to reduce the likelihood of a game-changer diminishing his focus on his job.
Translate that to a scenario with Alice, Bob, and Cindy. It need not be a third party (Alice) who is pushing these rules on Bob. When a couple has agreed on certain relationship rules, surely they both want them and think they’re good. They are still Bob’s rules for his relationships, even if Alice also supports them. It doesn’t have to be a third party dictating anything.
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
Erm, I was going to link “game-changer” to your game-changer post. http://tacit.livejournal.com/323210.html
There, I think?
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
Again, I see a difference between “I don’t want to eat at Clayton’s House of Clams” and “I forbid you to eat at Clayton’s House of Clams.”
The first is a statement of internal preference; the second is a control over another person’s behavior for the purpose of steering that person around some internal insecurity, self-esteem issue, or other problem that isn’t being dealt with directly. Regardless of whether Bob agrees to the ban or not, the fact remains that Alice, not Bob, has the issue, and Alice, not Bob, thinks the way to deal with the issue is to deny this experience to Cindy.
In my world, that is not how compassionate people deal with their sensitivities. Compassionate people deal with their sensitivities by saying “Ouch! I’m feeling triggered by the notion of you taking Cindy over to Clayton’s. There’s something in here that brings up some emotional issue for me, so I’d like your help in working through that. When you take her to Clayton’s House of Clams, can you spend some effort reassuring me and helping me to come to terms with my emotional trigger?”
At the end of the day–and this is me being pragmatic rather than theoretical–it has been my experience and observation, over and aver and over again, that folks who take the latter approach to dealing with their own sensitivities simply make better partners than folks who deal with them by saying “I forbid you to do what’s triggering to me.”
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
I’ve always found the “Well, Cindy knew the rules going in, so she could either agree to them or leave” argument to be particularly and especially cruel.
At the start of a relationship, it’s almost impossible to predict in advance how far it will go or what it will look like. It’s easy to agree to rules before your heart is on the line and then find, later, after you’ve fallen in love, that you’re hooked–the rules become burdensome but you’re committed to the relationship and can’t leave without a great deal of heartache.
It’s unintended cruelty on Alice and Bob’s part, perhaps, but it’s still cruel. And Alice and Bob making themselves feel better about hurting Cindy by saying “Well, she knew up front what she was getting into” only rubs salt on the wounds.
STD testing as a safe sex method?
1. I take a VERY BIG issue with the following:
There are other ways that this goal can be achieved. STD testing is an effective one. Sexual health is not an issue if the people involved have no STDs to begin with; they don’t spontaneously appear out of thin air.
STD testing is a wonderful thing, but it does nothing whatsoever to prevent sexual transmission, it only lets you know that it has occurred. I used to volunteer giving free rapid HIV tests, and one of the things that was drilled into our heads is that testing is NOT a valid substitute for barrier protection. STD testing won’t keep you from getting HIV or herpes or hep c, it will just let you know afterward that you are screwed. People you fuck don’t always know what they have because of incubation periods, and if you’re sleeping with more than one person who are sleeping with more than one person who are sleeping with more than one person… then someone ten degrees away from you who is an asshole who doesn’t disclose his/her status fucks someone who fucks someone who fucks someone on and on and on until they get to you; HIV can be passed on to hundreds of people within the 3 month window it takes to detect antibodies. There have been clusters of hundreds infected where each was formed because of one asshole with HIV lied about it so he didn’t have to wear a condom. Yes, you should get tested, that way you can get treated if you catch something and it protects your partners, but it does jack shit for protecting yourself.
2. I have 2 rules, one for physical health and one for emotional health. The first is that all my partners have to tell me if they are currently or become sexually active with someone else, whether or not they use protection with that person, and if any barriers they use break. The second one is that unless there is an emergency or a unique opportunity no one in my relationships cancel plans that have been made in order to do something with a different partner. If a partner is in the hospital, or their favorite band is playing in their city and they only tour once every few years, plans can be broken. Otherwise if you want to spend more time with one partner you don’t do it at the expense of another; that just leads to resentment and jealousy. If you want to spend time with someone then don’t tell someone else that they have that time with you.
3. Was Clayton’s House of Clams intentionally made to sound so euphemistic?
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
It sounds like you might be thinking of STD testing as “testing after the fact.” When I refer to STD testing, I’m referring to before-the-fact testing…eg, knowing what someone’s status is before sex occurs.
Testing after the fact doesn’t seem like it would affect transmission at all.
Clayton’s House of Clams was chosen for the alliteration, not the potential sexual overtones, I swear. 🙂
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Do you plan on waiting 3 months while not fucking anyone else to get follow-up testing after the incubation period is over to ensure that you don’t have HIV? Because that’s the ONLY way to be sure, the ONLY way to protect your partner. If your partner is unwilling to do that then they can’t protect you either.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Yep! When HIV antibody testing was the only way to do it, if I planned to be fluid-bonded with someone that’s precisely what I did. There’s a lot you can do without fluid-bonding.
Your information that it’s the ONLY way to do it, though, is outdated. HIV tests that do not rely on seroconversion, such as HIV DNA PCR, have a much shorter exposure window. HIV DNA PCR is 80% accurate within 72 hours of exposure, and has a maximum time window of around 5 days. In Atlanta, most of the clinics used HIV DNA PCR over antibody tests like ELISA. Here in Portland, ELISA is the norm.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
So you can be 80% sure your partner doesn’t have HIV?
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
80% within 5 days; as close to certain after 10. The ELISA antibody test is similar–it’s about 80% certain after 3 months, as close to certain as it gets after 6 months.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
I was trained using the OraQuick test, which has a 99.5% accuracy rate, which extrapolates to an efficacy rate of false negatives at 1:150,000. The untrained user accuracy rate is 98.6%. You’re welcome to read the study information on their package insert here for yourself (efficacy rates are not included in insert information, they are in the training materials).
I’d take that over 80%, but I wouldn’t take it over condoms. It only takes one lazy person or one inconsiderate person in your entire sexual web to get you infected.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
You seem to be misunderstanding what the “80%” means.
Right now, to my knowledge the HIV DNA PCR test is the single most accurate, most reliable HIV screening test available anywhere in the world. It works by looking for viral genetic material directly, not by looking for antibodies.
Antibody tests, such as the ELISA test, the HIV rapid test, and the OraQuick test, are highly accurate under ideal circumstances but there are a lot of limitations and caveats attached to that. The biggest limitation is that since they only look for antibodies, not for the virus, they are utterly worthless before seroconversion occurs. With HIV, it often requires many months for the body to produce antibodies.
Within 3 months of exposure, about 80% of people who are infected will have enough antibodies to show up on the test. That’s why HIV antibody tests are not considered most reliable until 6 months, and why many clinics say that the testing exposure is 6 months, not 3 months.
There are other gotchas as well. If a patient has been exposed to syphilis or HTLV, any HIV antibody test, including the OraQuick test, will often give “indeterminate” results. A patient who has recently had a blood transfusion may test negative even if he has previously been infected.
Also, the OraQuick test by itself is not 98.6% accurate on its own. According to the manufacturer’s Web site, it only achieves that accuracy rating if it is used with a followup Western Blot test. On its own, it has a tendency to false positives, which is why the manufacturer recommends followup Western blot tests for positive results.
The HIV DNA PCR test is accurate much more quickly than an antibody test, because it does not rely on seroconversion. Also, it is considered self-definitive; a followup Western blot test is not necessary to confirm a positive PCR test. [Edited to add: though often a followup test may be ordered by many physicians.]
Most people exposed to HIV will have a viral load high enough to test positive by DNA PCR within 72 hours. 80% of people exposed to HIV will have a viral load high enough to be detected by DNA PCR within 5-6 days. Its accuracy rating after 20 days is the best of any form of HIV testing which currently exists.
So the idea that the ONLY way to tell if you are infected with HIV is to wait 3 months is false; it assumes testing with an antibody test, not a PCR test, and the three-month window is only 80% accurate with most antibody tests (a six-month window is necessary for maximum accuracy).
All this is largely academic, though, because it’s kind of beside the point. The point is that even with concerns over STDs, there can be a negotiated solution other than “you are forbidden to have unbarriered sex with any other person.” Provided that everyone involved is willing to negotiate for it, there are other possibilities, such as “we will have tests, after the appropriate window for the type of tests we are using, and not have other unbarriered sexual partners while we are fluid bonded.”
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
I don’t recall saying that there are no ways to negotiate safety to a reasonable level without using barriers, I said that testing does not prevent transmission and should not be used as a prevention method. Nothing you have said contradicts this; if you have negotiations in place to keep people safe then you are, by definition, not relying on testing to prevent transmission, you are relying on the negotiated agreement.
However, what you said was For example, let’s look at a rule “No unprotected sex with other partners.”…[nothing about negotiations]…2. Does the rule serve the purpose?
Yes. The data on disease transmission and barriers is unambiguous.
3. Is this rule the only way to serve this purpose?
Oh, boy. Now we get into a pickle.
There are other ways that this goal can be achieved. STD testing is an effective one. Sexual health is not an issue if the people involved have no STDs to begin with; they don’t spontaneously appear out of thin air….[beginning to talk about emotional reasons for barrier choice]
You mention nothing in your post about STD testing only being a safe method of disease transmission in combination with other things (barriers, negotiation, etc.). This is still false (as I have said), and in my opinion, an irresponsible thing to tell people.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
This is clearly an issue that you’re quite passionate about. I can’t quite parse the part of your sentence about “STD testing only being a safe method of disease transmission,” but if you’re saying that you think I’m trying to maintain that it’s OK to have unprotected sex with all and sundry as long as you get tested afterward, yes, that would be a silly thing to say indeed. That is not, however, actually what I’m saying at all.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
…if you’re saying that you think I’m trying to maintain that it’s OK to have unprotected sex with all and sundry as long as you get tested afterward, yes, that would be a silly thing to say indeed. That is not, however, actually what I’m saying at all.
That’s actually exactly what you said. It may not be what you mean, but it’s what you said.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Interpretation is a tricky thing.
You’re clearly triggered by what you perceive as advice to have reckless condom-free sex without prior testing. I’m triggered by people telling me what I have said, rather than listening to what I’m actually saying. Nowhere on a second, third, or fourth reading of my post can I see anything that would suggest I advocate unbarriered sex without prior testing; I would assume that such an idea was so silly on the face of it that I would clearly have to be referring to testing before the fact, not testing after the fact.
But since this is something that triggers you, and since my perception that you are distorting my words and putting ideas into my writing that clearly (to my mind) are not there triggers me, I think at this point I am going to discontinue this conversation with you.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
I fully believe (and always have) that you do not advocate what I am saying that you wrote, that STD testing is a wholly sufficient alternative to barriers. However, when you state that STD testing is an alternative to barriers, without qualifying that statement, that implies that STD testing is sufficient.
I tend to read things literally, while most people don’t write so. I don’t interpret things, I take them on face value, but you probably assume that your readers will read into the statement what they know about your morals, ethics, and knowledge about the subject. Someone who had just stumbled across the post and had never read anything you wrote wouldn’t be able to do that, and would take your words at the same face value (although it is debatable whether or not they deserve what happens to them if they are stupid or lazy enough to just trust what is said on someone’s blog without corroboration from an expert source) that I do. Most of your readers would and do include the subtext, so it’s understandable that you would assume that, but that still doesn’t mean that it is actually written there (and someone who had never read anything you wrote happened to stumble across this post probably wouldn’t see it either). It’s like picturing the face of a silhouette because you know who the subject of the picture is; some people have the imagination to do so, others don’t.
I agree that it is pointless to argue this, as we agree on the idea, just not on whether you successfully expressed it.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Testing beforehand works great in a closed situation. But if one or more participants engages in casual sex, it doesn’t work.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
True.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
My point exactly. Thank you.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“Testing beforehand works great in a closed situation. But if one or more participants engages in casual sex, it doesn’t work.”
If one does not want to be a partner with someone who enjoys a sexuality that isn’t palatable to one’s sensibilities, then that — I would imagine — is far more important than quibbling over tests.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Not in terms of objective hard data on infection rates, it doesn’t.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“Not in terms of objective hard data on infection rates, it doesn’t.”
Yes, if one switches from pony to cow in mid-sentence, then a discussion regarding reins must necessarily take a backseat to udder-sucking machines.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
My comment (My ORIGINAL COMMENT that this ENTIRE thread has been based upon) was about the accuracy of a generalized statement of safety, not on relationship choices. This is not opinion, this is fact, therefore, objective data on infection rates and statistics of testing accuracy is perfectly relevant. Your comment on relationships is the cow; I hope you’re enjoying the milk.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“Your comment on relationships is the cow;”
Correction — I am pointing out that bringing up BEHAVIOR when the discussion involves testing is somewhat of a distraction at best.
I was responding to “Testing beforehand works great in a closed situation. But if one or more participants engages in casual sex, it doesn’t work.”
I suspect you are misinterpreting this exchange.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
In response to the content of your comment, regardless of its relevancy (because it’s out there, whether or not it is a distraction is now beside the point), I would say that a big point of being poly, from a sexual standpoint, would be that one can have a partner with which one enjoys certain things, and the partner can go elsewhere to satisfy needs that one does not find palatable.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Please — you really ARE misinterpreting this thread and my comments.
“I would say that a big point of being poly, from a sexual standpoint, would be that one can have a partner with which one enjoys certain things, and the partner can go elsewhere to satisfy needs that one does not find palatable.”
Well, of course. Unless one’s partners engage in acts that AREN’T palatable, in which case one has decisions one must make.
I will try to explain this in a different way…
Whether or not one engages in casual sex is as much of a palatable/unpalatable sexual act as, say, nasal fisting (as one other example).
That is what I meant by that phrase.
I am recasting “But if one or more participants engages in casual sex, it doesn’t work.” to “But if one or more participants engages in [an unpalatable sex act/a sex act that is contraindicated by the concerns of the current thread], it doesn’t work.”
It would be as if there was a discussion about the suspected causes of the Precambrian Extinction Event and someone sparked up with “Well, God just put all those bones there to test the faithful.”
One might respond (as did I) with a comment to the effect of “Well, perhaps, but once one engages in supernatural beings, then one is a bit out of place quibbling over gamma ray bursts.”
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
But my point is that one can find nasal fisting unpalatable, and still be with a partner who engages in it, but just keeps it limited to engaging in it with a different partner. In how I am interpreting what you are saying (and I tend to be fairly literal, unlike most people, so it may well be I have no clue what you mean), you are saying that since I don’t like X, I cannot have a successful relationship with someone who does like X, but keeps X limited to other partners and engages in Y with me.
Or maybe you find the definition of unpalatable to mean unacceptable, while mine is unpleasant; both are correct.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“But my point is that one can find nasal fisting unpalatable, and still be with a partner who engages in it, but just keeps it limited to engaging in it with a different partner. In how I am interpreting what you are saying (and I tend to be fairly literal, unlike most people, so it may well be I have no clue what you mean), you are saying that since I don’t like X, I cannot have a successful relationship with someone who does like X, but keeps X limited to other partners and engages in Y with me.”
No.
To use your nomenclature:
What I am saying is, essentially, that bringing up X in a conversation about Y (where y is contraindicated by X) is a bit of a nonsequitur.
The laughable part is that you have misinterpreted my attempt to suggest this AS A NONSEQUITUR.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Okay, you are just completely misunderstanding me, and it’s 3am, so I’m done with this and just going to bed.
STD testing as a safe sex method?
1. I take a VERY BIG issue with the following:
There are other ways that this goal can be achieved. STD testing is an effective one. Sexual health is not an issue if the people involved have no STDs to begin with; they don’t spontaneously appear out of thin air.
STD testing is a wonderful thing, but it does nothing whatsoever to prevent sexual transmission, it only lets you know that it has occurred. I used to volunteer giving free rapid HIV tests, and one of the things that was drilled into our heads is that testing is NOT a valid substitute for barrier protection. STD testing won’t keep you from getting HIV or herpes or hep c, it will just let you know afterward that you are screwed. People you fuck don’t always know what they have because of incubation periods, and if you’re sleeping with more than one person who are sleeping with more than one person who are sleeping with more than one person… then someone ten degrees away from you who is an asshole who doesn’t disclose his/her status fucks someone who fucks someone who fucks someone on and on and on until they get to you; HIV can be passed on to hundreds of people within the 3 month window it takes to detect antibodies. There have been clusters of hundreds infected where each was formed because of one asshole with HIV lied about it so he didn’t have to wear a condom. Yes, you should get tested, that way you can get treated if you catch something and it protects your partners, but it does jack shit for protecting yourself.
2. I have 2 rules, one for physical health and one for emotional health. The first is that all my partners have to tell me if they are currently or become sexually active with someone else, whether or not they use protection with that person, and if any barriers they use break. The second one is that unless there is an emergency or a unique opportunity no one in my relationships cancel plans that have been made in order to do something with a different partner. If a partner is in the hospital, or their favorite band is playing in their city and they only tour once every few years, plans can be broken. Otherwise if you want to spend more time with one partner you don’t do it at the expense of another; that just leads to resentment and jealousy. If you want to spend time with someone then don’t tell someone else that they have that time with you.
3. Was Clayton’s House of Clams intentionally made to sound so euphemistic?
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
It sounds like you might be thinking of STD testing as “testing after the fact.” When I refer to STD testing, I’m referring to before-the-fact testing…eg, knowing what someone’s status is before sex occurs.
Testing after the fact doesn’t seem like it would affect transmission at all.
Clayton’s House of Clams was chosen for the alliteration, not the potential sexual overtones, I swear. 🙂
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Do you plan on waiting 3 months while not fucking anyone else to get follow-up testing after the incubation period is over to ensure that you don’t have HIV? Because that’s the ONLY way to be sure, the ONLY way to protect your partner. If your partner is unwilling to do that then they can’t protect you either.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Testing beforehand works great in a closed situation. But if one or more participants engages in casual sex, it doesn’t work.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Yep! When HIV antibody testing was the only way to do it, if I planned to be fluid-bonded with someone that’s precisely what I did. There’s a lot you can do without fluid-bonding.
Your information that it’s the ONLY way to do it, though, is outdated. HIV tests that do not rely on seroconversion, such as HIV DNA PCR, have a much shorter exposure window. HIV DNA PCR is 80% accurate within 72 hours of exposure, and has a maximum time window of around 5 days. In Atlanta, most of the clinics used HIV DNA PCR over antibody tests like ELISA. Here in Portland, ELISA is the norm.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
True.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
So you can be 80% sure your partner doesn’t have HIV?
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
My point exactly. Thank you.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
80% within 5 days; as close to certain after 10. The ELISA antibody test is similar–it’s about 80% certain after 3 months, as close to certain as it gets after 6 months.
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
“It’s unintended cruelty on Alice and Bob’s part, perhaps, but it’s still cruel. And Alice and Bob making themselves feel better about hurting Cindy by saying “Well, she knew up front what she was getting into” only rubs salt on the wounds.”
I don’t think it’s unintended at all.
It’s a clear and lucid explanation, describing the situations and conditions under which Cindy will be disposed of.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“Testing beforehand works great in a closed situation. But if one or more participants engages in casual sex, it doesn’t work.”
If one does not want to be a partner with someone who enjoys a sexuality that isn’t palatable to one’s sensibilities, then that — I would imagine — is far more important than quibbling over tests.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
I was trained using the OraQuick test, which has a 99.5% accuracy rate, which extrapolates to an efficacy rate of false negatives at 1:150,000. The untrained user accuracy rate is 98.6%. You’re welcome to read the study information on their package insert here for yourself (efficacy rates are not included in insert information, they are in the training materials).
I’d take that over 80%, but I wouldn’t take it over condoms. It only takes one lazy person or one inconsiderate person in your entire sexual web to get you infected.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Not in terms of objective hard data on infection rates, it doesn’t.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“Not in terms of objective hard data on infection rates, it doesn’t.”
Yes, if one switches from pony to cow in mid-sentence, then a discussion regarding reins must necessarily take a backseat to udder-sucking machines.
Wow. So well written and so very sensible. Can I share this with my poly partners? If so, what kind of credit do you want?
Thank you for writing this. It made me understand my own dislike of rules better.
By all means! Feel free to send them over here. I’m also eventually planning to do some tweaks on this and post it over on More Than Two.
I was going to say that this would be excellent on your poly site!
Wow. So well written and so very sensible. Can I share this with my poly partners? If so, what kind of credit do you want?
Thank you for writing this. It made me understand my own dislike of rules better.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
My comment (My ORIGINAL COMMENT that this ENTIRE thread has been based upon) was about the accuracy of a generalized statement of safety, not on relationship choices. This is not opinion, this is fact, therefore, objective data on infection rates and statistics of testing accuracy is perfectly relevant. Your comment on relationships is the cow; I hope you’re enjoying the milk.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“Your comment on relationships is the cow;”
Correction — I am pointing out that bringing up BEHAVIOR when the discussion involves testing is somewhat of a distraction at best.
I was responding to “Testing beforehand works great in a closed situation. But if one or more participants engages in casual sex, it doesn’t work.”
I suspect you are misinterpreting this exchange.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
You seem to be misunderstanding what the “80%” means.
Right now, to my knowledge the HIV DNA PCR test is the single most accurate, most reliable HIV screening test available anywhere in the world. It works by looking for viral genetic material directly, not by looking for antibodies.
Antibody tests, such as the ELISA test, the HIV rapid test, and the OraQuick test, are highly accurate under ideal circumstances but there are a lot of limitations and caveats attached to that. The biggest limitation is that since they only look for antibodies, not for the virus, they are utterly worthless before seroconversion occurs. With HIV, it often requires many months for the body to produce antibodies.
Within 3 months of exposure, about 80% of people who are infected will have enough antibodies to show up on the test. That’s why HIV antibody tests are not considered most reliable until 6 months, and why many clinics say that the testing exposure is 6 months, not 3 months.
There are other gotchas as well. If a patient has been exposed to syphilis or HTLV, any HIV antibody test, including the OraQuick test, will often give “indeterminate” results. A patient who has recently had a blood transfusion may test negative even if he has previously been infected.
Also, the OraQuick test by itself is not 98.6% accurate on its own. According to the manufacturer’s Web site, it only achieves that accuracy rating if it is used with a followup Western Blot test. On its own, it has a tendency to false positives, which is why the manufacturer recommends followup Western blot tests for positive results.
The HIV DNA PCR test is accurate much more quickly than an antibody test, because it does not rely on seroconversion. Also, it is considered self-definitive; a followup Western blot test is not necessary to confirm a positive PCR test. [Edited to add: though often a followup test may be ordered by many physicians.]
Most people exposed to HIV will have a viral load high enough to test positive by DNA PCR within 72 hours. 80% of people exposed to HIV will have a viral load high enough to be detected by DNA PCR within 5-6 days. Its accuracy rating after 20 days is the best of any form of HIV testing which currently exists.
So the idea that the ONLY way to tell if you are infected with HIV is to wait 3 months is false; it assumes testing with an antibody test, not a PCR test, and the three-month window is only 80% accurate with most antibody tests (a six-month window is necessary for maximum accuracy).
All this is largely academic, though, because it’s kind of beside the point. The point is that even with concerns over STDs, there can be a negotiated solution other than “you are forbidden to have unbarriered sex with any other person.” Provided that everyone involved is willing to negotiate for it, there are other possibilities, such as “we will have tests, after the appropriate window for the type of tests we are using, and not have other unbarriered sexual partners while we are fluid bonded.”
By all means! Feel free to send them over here. I’m also eventually planning to do some tweaks on this and post it over on More Than Two.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
In response to the content of your comment, regardless of its relevancy (because it’s out there, whether or not it is a distraction is now beside the point), I would say that a big point of being poly, from a sexual standpoint, would be that one can have a partner with which one enjoys certain things, and the partner can go elsewhere to satisfy needs that one does not find palatable.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
I don’t recall saying that there are no ways to negotiate safety to a reasonable level without using barriers, I said that testing does not prevent transmission and should not be used as a prevention method. Nothing you have said contradicts this; if you have negotiations in place to keep people safe then you are, by definition, not relying on testing to prevent transmission, you are relying on the negotiated agreement.
However, what you said was For example, let’s look at a rule “No unprotected sex with other partners.”…[nothing about negotiations]…2. Does the rule serve the purpose?
Yes. The data on disease transmission and barriers is unambiguous.
3. Is this rule the only way to serve this purpose?
Oh, boy. Now we get into a pickle.
There are other ways that this goal can be achieved. STD testing is an effective one. Sexual health is not an issue if the people involved have no STDs to begin with; they don’t spontaneously appear out of thin air….[beginning to talk about emotional reasons for barrier choice]
You mention nothing in your post about STD testing only being a safe method of disease transmission in combination with other things (barriers, negotiation, etc.). This is still false (as I have said), and in my opinion, an irresponsible thing to tell people.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
This is clearly an issue that you’re quite passionate about. I can’t quite parse the part of your sentence about “STD testing only being a safe method of disease transmission,” but if you’re saying that you think I’m trying to maintain that it’s OK to have unprotected sex with all and sundry as long as you get tested afterward, yes, that would be a silly thing to say indeed. That is not, however, actually what I’m saying at all.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Please — you really ARE misinterpreting this thread and my comments.
“I would say that a big point of being poly, from a sexual standpoint, would be that one can have a partner with which one enjoys certain things, and the partner can go elsewhere to satisfy needs that one does not find palatable.”
Well, of course. Unless one’s partners engage in acts that AREN’T palatable, in which case one has decisions one must make.
I will try to explain this in a different way…
Whether or not one engages in casual sex is as much of a palatable/unpalatable sexual act as, say, nasal fisting (as one other example).
That is what I meant by that phrase.
I am recasting “But if one or more participants engages in casual sex, it doesn’t work.” to “But if one or more participants engages in [an unpalatable sex act/a sex act that is contraindicated by the concerns of the current thread], it doesn’t work.”
It would be as if there was a discussion about the suspected causes of the Precambrian Extinction Event and someone sparked up with “Well, God just put all those bones there to test the faithful.”
One might respond (as did I) with a comment to the effect of “Well, perhaps, but once one engages in supernatural beings, then one is a bit out of place quibbling over gamma ray bursts.”
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
…if you’re saying that you think I’m trying to maintain that it’s OK to have unprotected sex with all and sundry as long as you get tested afterward, yes, that would be a silly thing to say indeed. That is not, however, actually what I’m saying at all.
That’s actually exactly what you said. It may not be what you mean, but it’s what you said.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Interpretation is a tricky thing.
You’re clearly triggered by what you perceive as advice to have reckless condom-free sex without prior testing. I’m triggered by people telling me what I have said, rather than listening to what I’m actually saying. Nowhere on a second, third, or fourth reading of my post can I see anything that would suggest I advocate unbarriered sex without prior testing; I would assume that such an idea was so silly on the face of it that I would clearly have to be referring to testing before the fact, not testing after the fact.
But since this is something that triggers you, and since my perception that you are distorting my words and putting ideas into my writing that clearly (to my mind) are not there triggers me, I think at this point I am going to discontinue this conversation with you.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
I fully believe (and always have) that you do not advocate what I am saying that you wrote, that STD testing is a wholly sufficient alternative to barriers. However, when you state that STD testing is an alternative to barriers, without qualifying that statement, that implies that STD testing is sufficient.
I tend to read things literally, while most people don’t write so. I don’t interpret things, I take them on face value, but you probably assume that your readers will read into the statement what they know about your morals, ethics, and knowledge about the subject. Someone who had just stumbled across the post and had never read anything you wrote wouldn’t be able to do that, and would take your words at the same face value (although it is debatable whether or not they deserve what happens to them if they are stupid or lazy enough to just trust what is said on someone’s blog without corroboration from an expert source) that I do. Most of your readers would and do include the subtext, so it’s understandable that you would assume that, but that still doesn’t mean that it is actually written there (and someone who had never read anything you wrote happened to stumble across this post probably wouldn’t see it either). It’s like picturing the face of a silhouette because you know who the subject of the picture is; some people have the imagination to do so, others don’t.
I agree that it is pointless to argue this, as we agree on the idea, just not on whether you successfully expressed it.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
But my point is that one can find nasal fisting unpalatable, and still be with a partner who engages in it, but just keeps it limited to engaging in it with a different partner. In how I am interpreting what you are saying (and I tend to be fairly literal, unlike most people, so it may well be I have no clue what you mean), you are saying that since I don’t like X, I cannot have a successful relationship with someone who does like X, but keeps X limited to other partners and engages in Y with me.
Or maybe you find the definition of unpalatable to mean unacceptable, while mine is unpleasant; both are correct.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“But my point is that one can find nasal fisting unpalatable, and still be with a partner who engages in it, but just keeps it limited to engaging in it with a different partner. In how I am interpreting what you are saying (and I tend to be fairly literal, unlike most people, so it may well be I have no clue what you mean), you are saying that since I don’t like X, I cannot have a successful relationship with someone who does like X, but keeps X limited to other partners and engages in Y with me.”
No.
To use your nomenclature:
What I am saying is, essentially, that bringing up X in a conversation about Y (where y is contraindicated by X) is a bit of a nonsequitur.
The laughable part is that you have misinterpreted my attempt to suggest this AS A NONSEQUITUR.
This is a really great post. My partner and I have led discussions at a couple of kinky un-conferences on “Poly-Anarchy” covering a lot of similar ground, but I think this is much more clearly articulated.
One thing that we’ve talked about and found useful is focusing on intentions, usually mutual satisfaction and growth, instead of rules or boundaries. I find that as long as there is clear communication on all parts, it’s much better to have a direction or point that all parties are working towards instead of lines that they can’t cross.
hi Evan!
I was actually thinking of you guys when I read this article! how fun to find you here! good thoughts 🙂
cheers, Naomi
This is a really great post. My partner and I have led discussions at a couple of kinky un-conferences on “Poly-Anarchy” covering a lot of similar ground, but I think this is much more clearly articulated.
One thing that we’ve talked about and found useful is focusing on intentions, usually mutual satisfaction and growth, instead of rules or boundaries. I find that as long as there is clear communication on all parts, it’s much better to have a direction or point that all parties are working towards instead of lines that they can’t cross.
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
Okay, you are just completely misunderstanding me, and it’s 3am, so I’m done with this and just going to bed.
Yes. And this is why I’m not fluid-bonded with anyone – it feels like a very easy way to get unreasonable, manipulative rules in by the, er, back door.
Yes. And this is why I’m not fluid-bonded with anyone – it feels like a very easy way to get unreasonable, manipulative rules in by the, er, back door.
I always find it interesting, in discussions about rules that get sidetracked to safer sex agreements, some people who are opposed to the testing method of safer sex (please make note, I did not say everyone who are opposed to the testing methods), some of those people stick by condom usage as the better method, citing things like not being able to trust that their partner really hasn’t slept with anyone else within that window where the testing is effective.
I find that interesting, because the whole point of the original topic was that rules won’t stop someone who wants to break the rules.
If my partner and I have an agreement that we will both use condoms with other people, for the purpose of preventing the spread of STDs, there is nothing stopping him from *not* using condoms with someone else except his willingness to use condoms, just as there is nothing stopping him from having unprotected sex during that testing window except his willingness to adhere to the protected sex agreement. Making a rule that he should wear a condom, or that he should get tested, or that he should tell me everything I need to know to make informed decisions, will only be followed if he is a trustworthy sort with similar values as I on safer sex. If he is not, that rule won’t stop him, as untrustworthy people typically do untrustworthy things.
Then there’s the whole issue that several STDs are not preventable by condoms (i.e. oral herpes) and are spread through non-sexual contact, which is a whole other debate.
So it always strikes me when people take this particular position after having come at it from the topic of anti-rules.
Yes! I love how clearly you write, Joreth!
I’ll reply again, because you inspire me to think.
I have a partner who hates condoms with a passion. They really don’t work for him; they make sex boring. I know, because we used to use them, and not having sex was better (given other fun not penetrative sex things we were doing). Anyway, I would never ever expect him to use condoms reliably with another partner over the long term. It would be unrealistic and stupid of me.
I can, however, expect him to communicate about and with new partners, and assess health risks openly, and come up with a plan that will work for all of us to avoid disease transmission. And this is so much better than, as Edward said above, setting him up to violate “rules” and hurt me and our relationship.
I have a metamour that has an allergic reaction to all condoms – not just latex and not just lubricated ones … ALL condoms. She finally found one brand that she can use once every couple of days that only irritates her vaginal canal rather than completely fucks it up. Since she is willing to forgo penatrative sex entirely until such time as the partner becomes a long-term, trusted member of the family complete with test results, I think it is unnecessarily cruel to make a rule about what kinds of activities *I* think she should do, when, or how based on *my* discomfort.
She makes her own decisions. Our mutual partners trust her to make choices that honor their relationships, and the constant communication makes sure that there aren’t any misunderstandings about “choices that honor their relationships”, and they make their decisions between them. Then *I* have constant direct communication with her on the same topics, and based on that information and the test results, *I* make decisions about activities involving *me* and my partners with everyone’s input.
My “agreements” with my partners do not involve their behaviour or the behaviour of others. I don’t tell my partners what to do, or with whom. We agree to talk to each other and I’ve chosen partners who have similar values to me so that there is no need to try and make them behave a certain way – they want to anyway. Our agreements are *between us* and do not affect how they conduct their other relationships. And those “agreements” come down to, basically, 2 things: 1) don’t be an asshole; 2) talk to each other. Everything else is negotiable and everything else has changed over time and will continue to change.
In all my past relationships, without exception, every ending (and particularly every bad ending) was the result of breaking either #1 or #2. No amount of rules could have prevented whatever bad thing happened if at least one of us was an asshole or at least one of us didn’t talk to the other. Of the ones that were the most successful, we have only those 2 agreements & that seems to be why they are successful.
I always find it interesting, in discussions about rules that get sidetracked to safer sex agreements, some people who are opposed to the testing method of safer sex (please make note, I did not say everyone who are opposed to the testing methods), some of those people stick by condom usage as the better method, citing things like not being able to trust that their partner really hasn’t slept with anyone else within that window where the testing is effective.
I find that interesting, because the whole point of the original topic was that rules won’t stop someone who wants to break the rules.
If my partner and I have an agreement that we will both use condoms with other people, for the purpose of preventing the spread of STDs, there is nothing stopping him from *not* using condoms with someone else except his willingness to use condoms, just as there is nothing stopping him from having unprotected sex during that testing window except his willingness to adhere to the protected sex agreement. Making a rule that he should wear a condom, or that he should get tested, or that he should tell me everything I need to know to make informed decisions, will only be followed if he is a trustworthy sort with similar values as I on safer sex. If he is not, that rule won’t stop him, as untrustworthy people typically do untrustworthy things.
Then there’s the whole issue that several STDs are not preventable by condoms (i.e. oral herpes) and are spread through non-sexual contact, which is a whole other debate.
So it always strikes me when people take this particular position after having come at it from the topic of anti-rules.
No title
User referenced to your post from No title saying: […] Poly rules or not rules advice http://tacit.livejournal.com/370648.html […]
No title
User referenced to your post from No title saying: […] Poly rules or not rules advice http://tacit.livejournal.com/370648.html […]
Can I just say a “hell yeah”? We’ve always been pretty rules-free and talk about things as they come up, and how they are relevant to current situations. Just sort of asking for what we need without an expectation that we can control each other. I guess that’s how we live life in general, though. 🙂 It’s always surprised me how many poly folks have rules lists and how they look at us askance for not having that.
Looked at askance, mostly by de facto mono couples or future divorced couples.
Looked at askance, mostly by de facto mono couples or future divorced couples.
Can I just say a “hell yeah”? We’ve always been pretty rules-free and talk about things as they come up, and how they are relevant to current situations. Just sort of asking for what we need without an expectation that we can control each other. I guess that’s how we live life in general, though. 🙂 It’s always surprised me how many poly folks have rules lists and how they look at us askance for not having that.
Looked at askance, mostly by de facto mono couples or future divorced couples.
Looked at askance, mostly by de facto mono couples or future divorced couples.
Very interesting. Sharing this with my husband and others. You’ve articulated this much better than I’ve tried to in the past. 🙂
I’m curious what your opinion is on pro-creation when it comes to rules, boundaries, and the differences?
For example, for the foreseeable future, my husband and I only want to pro-create with each other (we have one child and are considering a second in the near future). I have two reasons for this. One, a reason for having rules/boundaries on this topic is that making and caring for a child requires resources that I currently cannot provide on my own (money, food, shelter, time) for more than one child, not to mention the love, affection and attention that is required.
Two, this is a shared experience that I only want to do with this one person.
We’re working it out in our own way but I’m curious of you opinion and others. 🙂
Very interesting. Sharing this with my husband and others. You’ve articulated this much better than I’ve tried to in the past. 🙂
I’m curious what your opinion is on pro-creation when it comes to rules, boundaries, and the differences?
For example, for the foreseeable future, my husband and I only want to pro-create with each other (we have one child and are considering a second in the near future). I have two reasons for this. One, a reason for having rules/boundaries on this topic is that making and caring for a child requires resources that I currently cannot provide on my own (money, food, shelter, time) for more than one child, not to mention the love, affection and attention that is required.
Two, this is a shared experience that I only want to do with this one person.
We’re working it out in our own way but I’m curious of you opinion and others. 🙂
oh my gosh, Edward. Very succinctly and nicely put.
not sure if this is precisely related, but it seems relevant and Hi Dawn!
I think communication is really important and understanding what people you’re in relationship are *expecting* from you, even if the goal is not to set up “rules” or make “demands.” It is possible that the person you want to be with has needs you can’t meet, or fears you can’t soothe.
I had a partner whose model of polyamory required that I would take on no other sexual partner until he had spent enough time with the new person to get to know him and feel friendly with him. Not only do I have a different poly model than that, I couldn’t even come up with a way to be flexible enough to make things work with this partner. And, the worst thing is that we had never discussed this issue (can you tell I was a poly newbie at the time?) so I ended up violating his trust without intending to, and then being told I was doing poly wrong. 🙁
So, be sure you talk about visions of how things will go and what each others’ needs are, and do it before you get so deep in that you’re risking mutual heartbreak.
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
Yes yes and yes
When you are committed to a person and are crazy in love with them, you will continue to go along with rules imposed on you from the start, because you’re not willing to lose that connection. I can assure you that this does not mean it doesn’t hurt like all holy hell!
🙁
Yes! I love how clearly you write, Joreth!
I’ll reply again, because you inspire me to think.
I have a partner who hates condoms with a passion. They really don’t work for him; they make sex boring. I know, because we used to use them, and not having sex was better (given other fun not penetrative sex things we were doing). Anyway, I would never ever expect him to use condoms reliably with another partner over the long term. It would be unrealistic and stupid of me.
I can, however, expect him to communicate about and with new partners, and assess health risks openly, and come up with a plan that will work for all of us to avoid disease transmission. And this is so much better than, as Edward said above, setting him up to violate “rules” and hurt me and our relationship.
I was going to say that this would be excellent on your poly site!
I have a metamour that has an allergic reaction to all condoms – not just latex and not just lubricated ones … ALL condoms. She finally found one brand that she can use once every couple of days that only irritates her vaginal canal rather than completely fucks it up. Since she is willing to forgo penatrative sex entirely until such time as the partner becomes a long-term, trusted member of the family complete with test results, I think it is unnecessarily cruel to make a rule about what kinds of activities *I* think she should do, when, or how based on *my* discomfort.
She makes her own decisions. Our mutual partners trust her to make choices that honor their relationships, and the constant communication makes sure that there aren’t any misunderstandings about “choices that honor their relationships”, and they make their decisions between them. Then *I* have constant direct communication with her on the same topics, and based on that information and the test results, *I* make decisions about activities involving *me* and my partners with everyone’s input.
My “agreements” with my partners do not involve their behaviour or the behaviour of others. I don’t tell my partners what to do, or with whom. We agree to talk to each other and I’ve chosen partners who have similar values to me so that there is no need to try and make them behave a certain way – they want to anyway. Our agreements are *between us* and do not affect how they conduct their other relationships. And those “agreements” come down to, basically, 2 things: 1) don’t be an asshole; 2) talk to each other. Everything else is negotiable and everything else has changed over time and will continue to change.
In all my past relationships, without exception, every ending (and particularly every bad ending) was the result of breaking either #1 or #2. No amount of rules could have prevented whatever bad thing happened if at least one of us was an asshole or at least one of us didn’t talk to the other. Of the ones that were the most successful, we have only those 2 agreements & that seems to be why they are successful.
Well said.
Well said.
I’m with you in that I found that no amount of rules can force a person to treat you with love and respect, or force them to take your needs into accounts. Without love, respect and turst there is no relationship, even if all the rules are followed.
That said, I’ve come to understand the difference between rules and bounderies as being a matter of communicaiton style. I don’t see either one as being inharently “right” or “wrong”. However, depending on your partner and how they prefer to comminicate one is likely to be received and understood much better than the other.
The difference between a “rule” and a “boundry” is very small. Either way what you end up with is a situation of “Doing X action will have a negative impact on the relationship”. Whether you discuss rules or bounderies your goal is to limit certain behaviors in order to prevent others or yourself from getting hurt.
Rules are expressing limits based on actions. Boundries are expressing limits based on consiquences. However, no matter how you slice it they are both an attempt to impose limits.
“I forbid you to have un-barriered sex with any other person”
This just bothers me so I’m going to change it to:
“I am asking you to agree not to have un-barriered sex with any other person”
This is a straight forward specific attempt to limit the actions of the person your talking to.
“In order to protect my sexual health, I reserve the right to discontinue having sexual intercourse with you if you have unbarriered sex with any other person”
By expressing a personal boundry you aren’t asking the person out right to limit their actions, but you are clearly expressing that if they don’t limit their actions there will be consiqences that effects them.
I personally prefer rules, my wife prefers boundries. If she were to say:
“In order to protect my sexual health, I reserve the right to discontinue having sexual intercourse with you if you have unbarriered sex with any other person”
To me that’s not setting a personal boundry, it’s making a threat. My response would be something like:
“Was threatening me reallly nessasary? Can’t you just ask me not to have sex without a condom without threatening not to have sex with me?”
For years when my wife and I would have discussions related to how each of us behaved in the relationship I would get upset because I saw how she expressed herself as being very passive agressive. It was obvious she was trying limit or control my actions, but I couldn’t understand what she wanted because she expressed herself in terms of the effects my actions had on her. I can’t begin to count the number of times I said “PLEASE! Just tell me what you want me to do!”
At the same time she would get upset because she saw my attempts to set rules as me being very controlling.
Over the years we’ve grown to understand each other, and each other’s communications styles, better. And in the end communication is what it’s all about. Whether you set rules or express boundries, if you and your partner(s) understand each other’s needs, desires and limits, then you are on the right path. If you don’t understand each other’s needs, desires and limits, then you have a problem regardless of what communication style your currently using.
The one and only problem I see with rules is that it’s easy to ask someone to restrict their behavior without actually talking about the reasons, thoughts and emotions behind the request.
I’m with you in that I found that no amount of rules can force a person to treat you with love and respect, or force them to take your needs into accounts. Without love, respect and turst there is no relationship, even if all the rules are followed.
That said, I’ve come to understand the difference between rules and bounderies as being a matter of communicaiton style. I don’t see either one as being inharently “right” or “wrong”. However, depending on your partner and how they prefer to comminicate one is likely to be received and understood much better than the other.
The difference between a “rule” and a “boundry” is very small. Either way what you end up with is a situation of “Doing X action will have a negative impact on the relationship”. Whether you discuss rules or bounderies your goal is to limit certain behaviors in order to prevent others or yourself from getting hurt.
Rules are expressing limits based on actions. Boundries are expressing limits based on consiquences. However, no matter how you slice it they are both an attempt to impose limits.
“I forbid you to have un-barriered sex with any other person”
This just bothers me so I’m going to change it to:
“I am asking you to agree not to have un-barriered sex with any other person”
This is a straight forward specific attempt to limit the actions of the person your talking to.
“In order to protect my sexual health, I reserve the right to discontinue having sexual intercourse with you if you have unbarriered sex with any other person”
By expressing a personal boundry you aren’t asking the person out right to limit their actions, but you are clearly expressing that if they don’t limit their actions there will be consiqences that effects them.
I personally prefer rules, my wife prefers boundries. If she were to say:
“In order to protect my sexual health, I reserve the right to discontinue having sexual intercourse with you if you have unbarriered sex with any other person”
To me that’s not setting a personal boundry, it’s making a threat. My response would be something like:
“Was threatening me reallly nessasary? Can’t you just ask me not to have sex without a condom without threatening not to have sex with me?”
For years when my wife and I would have discussions related to how each of us behaved in the relationship I would get upset because I saw how she expressed herself as being very passive agressive. It was obvious she was trying limit or control my actions, but I couldn’t understand what she wanted because she expressed herself in terms of the effects my actions had on her. I can’t begin to count the number of times I said “PLEASE! Just tell me what you want me to do!”
At the same time she would get upset because she saw my attempts to set rules as me being very controlling.
Over the years we’ve grown to understand each other, and each other’s communications styles, better. And in the end communication is what it’s all about. Whether you set rules or express boundries, if you and your partner(s) understand each other’s needs, desires and limits, then you are on the right path. If you don’t understand each other’s needs, desires and limits, then you have a problem regardless of what communication style your currently using.
The one and only problem I see with rules is that it’s easy to ask someone to restrict their behavior without actually talking about the reasons, thoughts and emotions behind the request.
Yes. Yes yes.
And also, the methods by which we agree to hurt our metamores.
Yes. Yes yes.
And also, the methods by which we agree to hurt our metamores.
Partners, metamours, friends, lovers, whatever terminology is hip and happenin’ these days. I just used “partners” and figured “Oh, no one would be nitty enough to think I was EXCLUDING anyone.”
Partners, metamours, friends, lovers, whatever terminology is hip and happenin’ these days. I just used “partners” and figured “Oh, no one would be nitty enough to think I was EXCLUDING anyone.”
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“I have a partner who enjoys a sexuality that I don’t personally enjoy.”
Sure, you say “don’t personally enjoy,” and I say “isn’t palatable to [your] sensibilities.” Six in one hand, half dozen in the other.
“It has nothing to do with being “palatable to my sensibilities.” It has everything to do with wanting to avoid illness, and also wanting to protect the health of my other long-term partner.”
The difference is semantic, with emotionally charged words — if you decided it WAS palatable to your sensibilities (or to use your own words, if you decided that you DID personally enjoy casual sex), you would do it, and then your (plural form of “your”) relationships would settle into whatever configuration would exist that supported that decision.
“We certainly don’t “quibble over tests.””
I have no idea what you do or don’t — the “quibbling over tests” comment referred to determining the efficacy of testing pre-relationship. If one is engaged in choices that contraindicate the usefulness of that, then its uselessness is a given. Same as if declaring “well, sure, but if one’s partner randomly murders me, then condoms won’t help” by way of one example.
“If he believed that having bareback sex with strangers was more important to him than my sexual health, then I would opt to end our sexual relationship.”
One has, as I mentioned earlier, that right, yes.
“This isn’t about being grossed out by a partner’s sexual interests.”
“grossed out,” “don’t want it for myself,” “unpalatable,” whatever phrase works for you.
“It’s about choosing the level of risk one is comfortable with, and everyone should have that freedom.”
Yes, of course. Or, with less emotional language attached to it: “…then they are always free to leave.”
Re: STD testing as a safe sex method?
“I have a partner who enjoys a sexuality that I don’t personally enjoy.”
Sure, you say “don’t personally enjoy,” and I say “isn’t palatable to [your] sensibilities.” Six in one hand, half dozen in the other.
“It has nothing to do with being “palatable to my sensibilities.” It has everything to do with wanting to avoid illness, and also wanting to protect the health of my other long-term partner.”
The difference is semantic, with emotionally charged words — if you decided it WAS palatable to your sensibilities (or to use your own words, if you decided that you DID personally enjoy casual sex), you would do it, and then your (plural form of “your”) relationships would settle into whatever configuration would exist that supported that decision.
“We certainly don’t “quibble over tests.””
I have no idea what you do or don’t — the “quibbling over tests” comment referred to determining the efficacy of testing pre-relationship. If one is engaged in choices that contraindicate the usefulness of that, then its uselessness is a given. Same as if declaring “well, sure, but if one’s partner randomly murders me, then condoms won’t help” by way of one example.
“If he believed that having bareback sex with strangers was more important to him than my sexual health, then I would opt to end our sexual relationship.”
One has, as I mentioned earlier, that right, yes.
“This isn’t about being grossed out by a partner’s sexual interests.”
“grossed out,” “don’t want it for myself,” “unpalatable,” whatever phrase works for you.
“It’s about choosing the level of risk one is comfortable with, and everyone should have that freedom.”
Yes, of course. Or, with less emotional language attached to it: “…then they are always free to leave.”
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
Rejecting a form of relationship that you don’t want (with that person, in that context, etc.) isn’t cruel I don’t think? Especially if you were clear that you didn’t want it?
I mean, if I’m clear that I’m pretty obsessed with my job, and sure, I’d like to have a romance with you, but I’ll never spend the weekend with you or go on vacations with you, and yes, I did really like getting flogged once upon a time but now I don’t indulge in that because it opens me up to a level of emotional attachment that I don’t want with anyone because for me it takes away from my focus on my work–
then if you fall in love with me and my unwillingness to become more deeply emotionally involved with you becomes painful for you, I’m being cruel? What, people should never deliberately seek out a light-hearted low-attachment romance? Or, they should be able to divine that the other person is going to “get hooked”, and end things to protect them? Or something?
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
No, what’s cruel is saying to someone “This relationship will always have constraints placed upon it by a third party. That third party has the power to dictate what you can and can not have; the following is a list of things you are not allowed to have. You are forbidden to spend the night with me, you are forbidden to eat at Clayton’s House of Clams with me, …” and then, when those burdens become less and less tolerable as the relationship deepens, turning around and saying “You knew all this when you signed on!” rather than “I see these restrictions are hurtful to you, so let’s talk about how we might make this relationship give you the things that you need.”
Of course, any relationship is voluntary. To a certain extent, this problem is self-limiting. Time and time again, in many different poly communities on both sides of the country, I’ve heard folks say things like “Yeah, back when I was new to poly, I got involved with a couple who had a whole bunch of rules. I’ll never do that again!” Experienced people do, to a statistically significant degree, seem more likely to avoid folks with rules-based relationships.
But it doesn’t change the fact that many such rules-based relationships deliberately set out to disempower newcomers, often under the banner of “I feel safer by disempowering them,” and then blame the newcomers when things go wrong. Sometimes it’s a subtle “Well, she knew the score going in, so it’s on her,” sometimes it’s a more blatant “Well, he didn’t respect me–a *real* poly person would respect me and my rules,” but either way, blame for the newcomer’s unhappiness is placed on the newcomer’s shoulders.
Compassion means striving to find ways to meet everyone’s needs, to make everyone feel heard and valued, and to give everyone a voice in a relationship. When you take that away, yes, I would call the result “cruelty.”
Thanks for saying this so clearly. My partners and I don’t have rules either, and I’ve had people give me that look 🙂
Thanks for saying this so clearly. My partners and I don’t have rules either, and I’ve had people give me that look 🙂
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
In a scenario like mine, with, for example, Bob, Bob’s job, and Cindy, Bob has these rules (no vacations, no flogging, etc.) regarding his relationship with Cindy because he wants them, he thinks they’re good for him, and he’s trying to reduce the likelihood of a game-changer diminishing his focus on his job.
Translate that to a scenario with Alice, Bob, and Cindy. It need not be a third party (Alice) who is pushing these rules on Bob. When a couple has agreed on certain relationship rules, surely they both want them and think they’re good. They are still Bob’s rules for his relationships, even if Alice also supports them. It doesn’t have to be a third party dictating anything.
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
Erm, I was going to link “game-changer” to your game-changer post. http://tacit.livejournal.com/323210.html
There, I think?
Re: A little Devil’s Advocate
Again, I see a difference between “I don’t want to eat at Clayton’s House of Clams” and “I forbid you to eat at Clayton’s House of Clams.”
The first is a statement of internal preference; the second is a control over another person’s behavior for the purpose of steering that person around some internal insecurity, self-esteem issue, or other problem that isn’t being dealt with directly. Regardless of whether Bob agrees to the ban or not, the fact remains that Alice, not Bob, has the issue, and Alice, not Bob, thinks the way to deal with the issue is to deny this experience to Cindy.
In my world, that is not how compassionate people deal with their sensitivities. Compassionate people deal with their sensitivities by saying “Ouch! I’m feeling triggered by the notion of you taking Cindy over to Clayton’s. There’s something in here that brings up some emotional issue for me, so I’d like your help in working through that. When you take her to Clayton’s House of Clams, can you spend some effort reassuring me and helping me to come to terms with my emotional trigger?”
At the end of the day–and this is me being pragmatic rather than theoretical–it has been my experience and observation, over and aver and over again, that folks who take the latter approach to dealing with their own sensitivities simply make better partners than folks who deal with them by saying “I forbid you to do what’s triggering to me.”
I like what you wrote. But I have a bit of forgetfulness about many things and I need rules, goals, and boundaries written down so I can refer to them later. Many people are like this. When drama comes around, and no rules or goals were written down, then everyone seems to have a different memory of what was said and when. I wish I had a photographic memory or a better memory, but I don’t. (^:=
Jonathan
I like what you wrote. But I have a bit of forgetfulness about many things and I need rules, goals, and boundaries written down so I can refer to them later. Many people are like this. When drama comes around, and no rules or goals were written down, then everyone seems to have a different memory of what was said and when. I wish I had a photographic memory or a better memory, but I don’t. (^:=
Jonathan
I would think “Tell me if you have unprotected sex” is a requisite rule for the viability of a boundary like “In order to protect my sexual health, I reserve the right to discontinue having sexual intercourse with you if you have unbarriered sex with any other person”.
(As to STD testing vs condoms, I find it odd that no one arguing “testing isn’t 100%” has noticed that neither are condoms…)
I would think “Tell me if you have unprotected sex” is a requisite rule for the viability of a boundary like “In order to protect my sexual health, I reserve the right to discontinue having sexual intercourse with you if you have unbarriered sex with any other person”.
(As to STD testing vs condoms, I find it odd that no one arguing “testing isn’t 100%” has noticed that neither are condoms…)
Well said! I’ve not yet had the opportunity to enter a poly relationship (though the lifestyle interests me) but I had a gut feeling anyone with 1000 rules to becoming romantically involved with them, I would run away. Now I have words and logic to back up that knee-jerk reaction, should the need ever arise (hopefully it never will.)
Just thought of another possible line of reasoning to add to yours: imagine someone with a list of take-it-or-leave-it rules to entering into a *monogamous* relationship with them, and how that would seem if you went to start dating them. IMHO a situation that’s awkward one-on-one does not magically become socially acceptable if it’s poly.
Well said! I’ve not yet had the opportunity to enter a poly relationship (though the lifestyle interests me) but I had a gut feeling anyone with 1000 rules to becoming romantically involved with them, I would run away. Now I have words and logic to back up that knee-jerk reaction, should the need ever arise (hopefully it never will.)
Just thought of another possible line of reasoning to add to yours: imagine someone with a list of take-it-or-leave-it rules to entering into a *monogamous* relationship with them, and how that would seem if you went to start dating them. IMHO a situation that’s awkward one-on-one does not magically become socially acceptable if it’s poly.
hi Evan!
I was actually thinking of you guys when I read this article! how fun to find you here! good thoughts 🙂
cheers, Naomi
Repost for Tagging: Boundaries vs. Rules
User referenced to your post from Repost for Tagging: Boundaries vs. Rules saying: […] thinking points regardless of relationship type really: http://tacit.livejournal.com/370648.html […]
Repost for Tagging: Boundaries vs. Rules
User referenced to your post from Repost for Tagging: Boundaries vs. Rules saying: […] thinking points regardless of relationship type really: http://tacit.livejournal.com/370648.html […]