This post was inspired by something said in the mono_poly community, and it’s something I feel very passionately about.
Someone in mono_poly wrote about the idea that polyamory is a mechanism for a person’s partner to get those needs met which that person cannot directly meet himself.
This is one of the most enduring ideas about polyamory I have ever encountered.
In my experience, it is also one of the furthest from the truth.
You see this idea expressed by both polyamorous and monogamous people. The monogamous person looks at his polyamorous partner sand says “Why am I not enough?” The polyamorous person looks at his polyamorous partner and says “Ah, polyamory lets you have the things I can’t give you.” Implicit in the foundation of both statements is the idea that a person is polyamorous because of the qualities of his partner.
I believe this is utter bunk.
I am not polyamorous because of the qualities, deficiencies, or shortcomings of my partners. I am not polyamorous because my wife is “not enough,” and I am not polyamorous because I have a list of needs and I get those needs met from different people. My polyamory is not a consequence of the people around me at all. It would not matter who I was involved with; it would not make any difference if I were to find a partner who could meet 100% of my needs 100% of the time…I would still be polyamorous. Polyamory, for me, is a consequence of who I am, not a consequence of who my partners are, or how successful my partners are at meeting my needs.
The idea that polyamory is a way of getting one’s needs met from multiple sources also contains a deeper, more subtle flaw: It assumes that relationship needs are transitive. They are not.
I do not have a list of needs, and then seek partners who meet those needs until I have met all the needs on that list. The needs of a relationship are not attached to a person; they are atttached both to people and to relationships themselves.
In many ways, a relationship between two people can be thought of as an entity unto itself. A relationship has its own needs, and in some ways has its own agenda as well. It’s been my experience that relationships are most successful when the people involved pay attention to their needs, the needs of their partner, and the needs of the relationship.
When you look at relationships this way, it quickly becomes obvious that the rules of relationships do not follow the rules of mathematics. If I need A, B, C, D, and E from my romantic relationships, it does not necessarily follow that if I get A, B, and D from Suzie, and C, E, and F from Betty, I will be fine.
In reality, what is more likely to happen is that when I become involved with Suzie and Betty, I find that I need A, B, C, E, and F from Suzie, and I need B, C, D, and F from Betty. Getting F from Suzie does not mean I no longer need F from Betty–and in fact if I need F from Betty and can’t have it, my relationship with Betty may suffer as a result.
Romantic needs are not transitive; people are not interchangeable. If I am getting something from one partner, that does not mean my need for that thing is now discharged and I do not need it from another partner. Romantic relationships simply don’t work that way.
Bottom line: Polyamory is not about external factors; a person is not polyamorous because his partner is insufficient or because he needs things his partner can’t provide. A person is polyamorous because of internal factors, which cut right to the heart of the way that person thinks about relationships, and the blueprint of that person’s heart. Perhaps the polyamorous person is poly because the drive within him to seek out love and intimacy does not switch off when he has found a pertner; perhaps the polyamorous person is poly because of the way he thinks about family. Hell, perhaps the polyamorous person is poly because some subtle quirk of genetics or some environmental happenstance, or both, have conspired in such a way as to make his brain work differently than other people’s.
But it’s not about having more needs, or getting all your needs met, or about some inadequacy in his partners.
And that’s a feature, not a bug.
Very, very well said. I have fought against this, because my husband is not lacking in any way. He is an important part of every element of my life.
And yet, I have the capacity to love others.
Very, very well said. I have fought against this, because my husband is not lacking in any way. He is an important part of every element of my life.
And yet, I have the capacity to love others.
hmmm. A distinction…
I think we are mostly in agreement. But I think there’s a subtle distinction that I’m making that I don’t see here.
I think the key is to look at it from the other side. It’s not that my partner is “lacking” in some way, but instead that there’s something ADDED to the relationship through being poly. It’s true that my hubby Akien can get certain needs fulfilled through poly that would be much more difficult for us were we strictly mono. His sex drive is just higher than mine, under most circumstances. But that doesn’t make me “lacking” nor does it make his needs unreasonable, both concepts we have struggled with and managed to discard for ourselves over the years.
This aspect of poly ONLY applies, BTW, because of the restrictive rules that we in our culture have around sex. One can see this by looking at OTHER needs that could get met through a poly situation. For instance, I am a singer, and Akien is, well, NOT. ;^) I actually have a need for this sort of music in my life, which has been proven over the past few years of relative lack in this realm. One possibility for getting that need met would be for me to have a lover who is a singer. However, it is not necessary for me to have a LOVER for this role–it can be, and is, quite nicely fulfilled by my having FRIENDS (in this case non-sexual) with whom I sing. It is only because we reserve sex for closed romantic relationships (at least if it’s to be “legitimate”) that this argument comes up around getting needs for sex met. And in fact many poly people DO get their sexual needs met through friends.
The idea that polyamory is a way of getting one’s needs met from multiple sources also contains a deeper, more subtle flaw: It assumes that relationship needs are transitive. They are not. … It’s been my experience that relationships are most successful when the people involved pay attention to their needs, the needs of their partner, and the needs of the relationship.
Yes. We talk about the needs of the relationship all the time in our own work, and in our coaching. (“The needs of the individual ARE the needs of the relationship” is one of our favorite phrases, which in this case means that one MUST attempt win-win solutions–any solution that has one partner win and the other lose has the RELATIONSHIP lose. But I digress.) However, just because the relationship needs are not transitive does not mean that the individual needs are not transitive. They can be, and poly can be one TOOL to meet those individual needs. But it should not be the ONLY tool in one’s toolbox. There should be MANY possible tools to getting one’s own needs met. First and foremost would be meeting one’s OWN needs whenever possible. (If my need to sing is just to SING, then I might be able to get that need met by singing more in the shower or the car. As it happens, though, it’s a more complex need than that, and requires other people to fulfill.) Then other options are there, including getting needs met through one’s partner, one’s friends, one’s business associates, one’s lover(s) and one’s kids. Ultimately, though, it’s the individual’s responsibility to get his/her own needs met, and poly is simply one possible tool for that.
Yes, it’s a feature, not a bug. :^)
hmmm. A distinction…
I think we are mostly in agreement. But I think there’s a subtle distinction that I’m making that I don’t see here.
I think the key is to look at it from the other side. It’s not that my partner is “lacking” in some way, but instead that there’s something ADDED to the relationship through being poly. It’s true that my hubby Akien can get certain needs fulfilled through poly that would be much more difficult for us were we strictly mono. His sex drive is just higher than mine, under most circumstances. But that doesn’t make me “lacking” nor does it make his needs unreasonable, both concepts we have struggled with and managed to discard for ourselves over the years.
This aspect of poly ONLY applies, BTW, because of the restrictive rules that we in our culture have around sex. One can see this by looking at OTHER needs that could get met through a poly situation. For instance, I am a singer, and Akien is, well, NOT. ;^) I actually have a need for this sort of music in my life, which has been proven over the past few years of relative lack in this realm. One possibility for getting that need met would be for me to have a lover who is a singer. However, it is not necessary for me to have a LOVER for this role–it can be, and is, quite nicely fulfilled by my having FRIENDS (in this case non-sexual) with whom I sing. It is only because we reserve sex for closed romantic relationships (at least if it’s to be “legitimate”) that this argument comes up around getting needs for sex met. And in fact many poly people DO get their sexual needs met through friends.
The idea that polyamory is a way of getting one’s needs met from multiple sources also contains a deeper, more subtle flaw: It assumes that relationship needs are transitive. They are not. … It’s been my experience that relationships are most successful when the people involved pay attention to their needs, the needs of their partner, and the needs of the relationship.
Yes. We talk about the needs of the relationship all the time in our own work, and in our coaching. (“The needs of the individual ARE the needs of the relationship” is one of our favorite phrases, which in this case means that one MUST attempt win-win solutions–any solution that has one partner win and the other lose has the RELATIONSHIP lose. But I digress.) However, just because the relationship needs are not transitive does not mean that the individual needs are not transitive. They can be, and poly can be one TOOL to meet those individual needs. But it should not be the ONLY tool in one’s toolbox. There should be MANY possible tools to getting one’s own needs met. First and foremost would be meeting one’s OWN needs whenever possible. (If my need to sing is just to SING, then I might be able to get that need met by singing more in the shower or the car. As it happens, though, it’s a more complex need than that, and requires other people to fulfill.) Then other options are there, including getting needs met through one’s partner, one’s friends, one’s business associates, one’s lover(s) and one’s kids. Ultimately, though, it’s the individual’s responsibility to get his/her own needs met, and poly is simply one possible tool for that.
Yes, it’s a feature, not a bug. :^)
I find my desire to be poly to be connected to my desire to love those I love. If I’m not able to love all of them (to the fullest extent they want it, of course, depending on the strength of the relationship between us), I find myself unable to express much of anything to any of them. This really short-changes the hell out of my wife, needless to say. Luckily, I’m married to someone not at all threatened by my interest in others. She’s been poly-minded for longer than me, as it happens, and understands the notion perfectly well.
I’m an all-or-nothing sort of person, not very comfortable with grey areas. I’ve had to learn to adjust my expectations of relationships, since it’s rare that I meet someone as comfortable as my wife and I are with letting the relationship find its own level.
I completely agree, though, that my interest in others isn’t driven by a “checklist,” and I now see that my using that concept to illustrate poly to non-believers has been a mistake. I hate having to fall back on facile catch-phrases like “open marriage,” since that implies nothing more than allowable non-marital sex, but I’m still trying to find a way to simply explain a very complex relationship model.
The “water seeks its own level” model may have merit, but I’ll have to work it out.
I find my desire to be poly to be connected to my desire to love those I love. If I’m not able to love all of them (to the fullest extent they want it, of course, depending on the strength of the relationship between us), I find myself unable to express much of anything to any of them. This really short-changes the hell out of my wife, needless to say. Luckily, I’m married to someone not at all threatened by my interest in others. She’s been poly-minded for longer than me, as it happens, and understands the notion perfectly well.
I’m an all-or-nothing sort of person, not very comfortable with grey areas. I’ve had to learn to adjust my expectations of relationships, since it’s rare that I meet someone as comfortable as my wife and I are with letting the relationship find its own level.
I completely agree, though, that my interest in others isn’t driven by a “checklist,” and I now see that my using that concept to illustrate poly to non-believers has been a mistake. I hate having to fall back on facile catch-phrases like “open marriage,” since that implies nothing more than allowable non-marital sex, but I’m still trying to find a way to simply explain a very complex relationship model.
The “water seeks its own level” model may have merit, but I’ll have to work it out.
Kelly
Franklin
This is indeed a complex issue and it’s not easy for others to understand, or judge. What is clear however, is that you have a situation where your wife is coming from an entirely different place than you – and therein lies the difficulty. I don’t know if you ever read each other’s journals, or simply speak about these matters directly to each other – but about a year ago I was browsing through Kelly’s journal and some of her words made it clear to me that she is probably, basically, monogamous. She wrote – “no more pretending he is just married”.
No matter what a person’s needs might be, I believe we all have a responsibility, in seeking to fulfill those needs, not to hurt those we love. And it seems to me, from this distance, that this is what you are risking by moving another woman into your home (yours and Kelly’s home). I don’t think you know that much about women actually. From what Kelly says in her journal, she has unresolved issues with Shelly and things will only get worse when they are brought together under one roof. I see what you are doing as selfish in the extreme and very foolhardy. But then again, it is your life to do with what you will. I hope you will be willing to accept the consequences at the end.
By the way, this is what I posted on Kelly’s journal the other day. I hope she finds someone to help her pick up her life when the day comes.
Ruth
Kelly
What I was wondering when I read this entry in your journal (and several months previously I have read other entries) is – where are YOUR other ‘relationships/s’? Isn’t this a shared ‘poly’ relationship? It intrigued me when Franklin said in his journal that you had been the first one to have a relationship with someone else. I can’t help but wonder if this had been what you wanted, or what Franklin wanted. You sound (and here I may well be totally incorrect) like a person who would be very happy to be in a monogamous relationship – just a one half of a married couple – you and Franklin. It seems to me from the reading of both of your journals that Franklin has a pretty sweet deal with you in this relationship – loving, sweet-natured wife – doesn’t make many waves – and you are always there for him.
I maintain (even admitting to not a great deal of knowledge of poly relationships) that such relationships benefit men far more than women, and that long term, women are going to be the ones in tears. Perhaps poly relationships DO work very well sometimes, but if you are feeling excluded within your own marriage, then something is very wrong. And when Shelly is gone, someone else will be there to take her place and the whole cycle will start again. So maybe if there is no other way that Franklin will live, other than in a poly relationship, then perhaps YOU can find someone kind and caring and loving to take your mind off things, and he can move some of his things into the house, and Franklin can share with someone else.
Franklin was right about one thing – you are certainly a very sweet person and FAR more understanding and agreeable than I would be in your situation. But of course I wouldn’t be there in the first place. Monogamy isn’t perfect (after all, what is?), but neither are poly relationships, and you are fortunate at least that there’s just the two of you to worry about (well, there’s Shelly too of course).
Best of luck Kelly, I hope everything works out.
Ruth
Re: Kelly
Ruth, your recent responses make me curious about your history. “Polyamory” can be practiced carelessly and callously, and I’ve seen lifetime scars left as a result. Most of us have a horror story or three, despite our best intentions (and sometimes because of our less than noble intentions), because we are learning as we go along. Not only learning about polyamory, but learning about ourselves – about who we are and what is right for each of us in our own lives.
In order to truly judge this situation, it’s important to understand the context in which it rests. Your words indicate a particular philosophy and world view. In a world where there can only be one wife, any woman who wishes the same can only be a usurper. It becomes a competition, and the man who would try to have both can only be doing so out of greed.
This is not easy on any of us. We are doing the best that we can with the situation we have. And all told, we have not done that badly. The decisions the three of us are making now come out of a set of assumptions that I don’t believe you share. Try to switch out your lenses for a moment and look at the three of us with the assumption that it is possible to have more than one life partner in an ethical and responsible way. Franklin and Kelly made a commitment to each other to share their lives together. Franklin and I have also made that commitment.
I would never force myself into Kelly’s life and Kelly’s home if she did not want me there, nor would I ever tell her that she cannot have a relationship with Franklin. These ideas are absurd. Regardless of the challanges that Kelly and I face and the damage that has been done between us, she has an unequivocable right to be in a relationship with Franklin. It is a consequence of their love, of their history and of their commitment to each other. It stands alone and it is sacred and I hold it as such. This is the way I conduct my life and view the relationships that I touch. This is not a special treatment that is reserved for the wife. The respect I give a relationship isn’t based on where it falls in the heirarchy. This is the way I treat every single person who crosses my path. You have the right to define your relationships as you wish to. I don’t care if we are friends, lovers or life partners – It is your right. Franklin has the right to choose whom he loves and how he defines those relationships. I trust that he will listen to my concerns and cherish my feelings. I trust that he will take care of me and our relationship. I trust him down to my toes, and that’s all I need.
Respect and care are a gift. Mistreat that gift for too long and you will lose it. I cannot be asked to hold and cherish and respect a relationship that in turn treats me as if I am expendable. Franklin and I are also life partners.
And I deserve respect too.
I would never force myself into Kelly’s home. I would never tell her she cannot have a relationship with Franklin. I would never tell her she cannot live with Franklin. That is absurd. I don’t have that right. I believe it would be 100% wrong for me to do any of those things.
And it’s wrong for her to try to do those things to me. I want to share a future with Franklin that includes a home together. Kelly will always be included in that because she has a right to be here – I am only asking her to reciprocate the respect I give her.
There is a year long history here and a failed and painful attempt to have a primary/secondary relationship. It may be hard to imagine how one person could have two primary relationship.. It may appear that this kind of situation is unsustainable. It may look like the person in the middle is getting a pretty sweet deal. It may look like Kelly has been victimized and forced into this position. Thankfully, outer appearences rarely betray the truth.
Re: Kelly
I was wondering what happened. I’ve been away from reading journals for the entire year, and come back to find gone and drama springing forth in a new light. I look forward to talking to you guys more in a few days. =D
Re: Your comment
Shelly
Thank you for your comment, though it actually surprised me that it hadn’t come from either Franklin or Kelly. And it is true of course, that each individual has his/her own ideas and moral outlooks on relationships, and the form they should take in their lives.
However, it wasn’t all that long ago that Franklin was ‘in love’ with another woman, and he also wanted her to move in with him and Kelly. I guess he’s moved on from there.
And it seems to me at least, from what Kelly has written, that she DOESN’T want you to move in, that she DOESN’T view you as ‘family’, as Franklin does, and in anyone’s language, this is a receipe for disaster. Time will tell I guess.
My history, since you mentioned it, comes from being involved with someone not dissimilar to Franklin (albeit several years younger). Franklin says how it is not the ‘inadequacies of his partner/s’ that drives him to look for others. I think there is probably something inadequate in FRANKLIN – a self-indulgent bent – and that maybe nothing and nobody will ever be able to make up for what he lacks. By the way, there’s something called a ‘Puer Aeternus’ – maybe Franklin would like to research this and see if anything ‘fits’. Harsh judgement? Sure! But it’s MY view, from this side of the world, and when you write an on-line web journal and ask for comments, you invariably get them, even the ones you don’t like.
It’s funny you know Shelly, how you can feel empathy for someone just by the words they write….I feel this way about Kelly – she wants to please everyone, and will probably end up putting herself last, and nobody being all that pleased anyway.
I wish her all the luck in the world – I hope she knows that. Cheers!
Kelly
Franklin
This is indeed a complex issue and it’s not easy for others to understand, or judge. What is clear however, is that you have a situation where your wife is coming from an entirely different place than you – and therein lies the difficulty. I don’t know if you ever read each other’s journals, or simply speak about these matters directly to each other – but about a year ago I was browsing through Kelly’s journal and some of her words made it clear to me that she is probably, basically, monogamous. She wrote – “no more pretending he is just married”.
No matter what a person’s needs might be, I believe we all have a responsibility, in seeking to fulfill those needs, not to hurt those we love. And it seems to me, from this distance, that this is what you are risking by moving another woman into your home (yours and Kelly’s home). I don’t think you know that much about women actually. From what Kelly says in her journal, she has unresolved issues with Shelly and things will only get worse when they are brought together under one roof. I see what you are doing as selfish in the extreme and very foolhardy. But then again, it is your life to do with what you will. I hope you will be willing to accept the consequences at the end.
By the way, this is what I posted on Kelly’s journal the other day. I hope she finds someone to help her pick up her life when the day comes.
Ruth
Kelly
What I was wondering when I read this entry in your journal (and several months previously I have read other entries) is – where are YOUR other ‘relationships/s’? Isn’t this a shared ‘poly’ relationship? It intrigued me when Franklin said in his journal that you had been the first one to have a relationship with someone else. I can’t help but wonder if this had been what you wanted, or what Franklin wanted. You sound (and here I may well be totally incorrect) like a person who would be very happy to be in a monogamous relationship – just a one half of a married couple – you and Franklin. It seems to me from the reading of both of your journals that Franklin has a pretty sweet deal with you in this relationship – loving, sweet-natured wife – doesn’t make many waves – and you are always there for him.
I maintain (even admitting to not a great deal of knowledge of poly relationships) that such relationships benefit men far more than women, and that long term, women are going to be the ones in tears. Perhaps poly relationships DO work very well sometimes, but if you are feeling excluded within your own marriage, then something is very wrong. And when Shelly is gone, someone else will be there to take her place and the whole cycle will start again. So maybe if there is no other way that Franklin will live, other than in a poly relationship, then perhaps YOU can find someone kind and caring and loving to take your mind off things, and he can move some of his things into the house, and Franklin can share with someone else.
Franklin was right about one thing – you are certainly a very sweet person and FAR more understanding and agreeable than I would be in your situation. But of course I wouldn’t be there in the first place. Monogamy isn’t perfect (after all, what is?), but neither are poly relationships, and you are fortunate at least that there’s just the two of you to worry about (well, there’s Shelly too of course).
Best of luck Kelly, I hope everything works out.
Ruth
This may be so.
I’m a little drunk, so I’m not going to attempt a full answer. All I can say is, even if it is so, it’s not enough. It doesn’t actually matter. Speaking just for me, as ever, whatever it may look like: it doesn’t matter if the reason I could not be enough for my partner was something innate to her, as opposed to anything in me. It’s irrelevant from the POV of the mono person in such a relationship. You still don’t get what you want, what you need; you still get less than all, you still have to share what cannot be shared.
Oh, I’m probably not making any sense. Ignore this. I’ll go away now.
This may be so.
I’m a little drunk, so I’m not going to attempt a full answer. All I can say is, even if it is so, it’s not enough. It doesn’t actually matter. Speaking just for me, as ever, whatever it may look like: it doesn’t matter if the reason I could not be enough for my partner was something innate to her, as opposed to anything in me. It’s irrelevant from the POV of the mono person in such a relationship. You still don’t get what you want, what you need; you still get less than all, you still have to share what cannot be shared.
Oh, I’m probably not making any sense. Ignore this. I’ll go away now.
Internal Factors
Franklin,
What you’ve said here is so true. I know for myself that although I have never actually lived a poly relationship I don’t feel that I am any less poly than those that have. I identify as poly because I don’t see love as being in any way limited. From a very young age I remember being confused by the idea that people thought they could control whether or not they loved someone. For me the only thing you can control is what you do with that love. For someone who is mono, if they meet someone outside of their relationship they would not be able to pursue them but that doesn’t mean that the feelings won’t be there. That to me is what is so important about the concept of honor. I feel that is very important for a person to have a personal code of honor. I’m not talking about something formal but to have put thought into and decided on their own standards of behaviour. One of the things that has most impressed me about you is that you come across as having a well developed code of honor.
Internal Factors
Franklin,
What you’ve said here is so true. I know for myself that although I have never actually lived a poly relationship I don’t feel that I am any less poly than those that have. I identify as poly because I don’t see love as being in any way limited. From a very young age I remember being confused by the idea that people thought they could control whether or not they loved someone. For me the only thing you can control is what you do with that love. For someone who is mono, if they meet someone outside of their relationship they would not be able to pursue them but that doesn’t mean that the feelings won’t be there. That to me is what is so important about the concept of honor. I feel that is very important for a person to have a personal code of honor. I’m not talking about something formal but to have put thought into and decided on their own standards of behaviour. One of the things that has most impressed me about you is that you come across as having a well developed code of honor.
I think it’s worthwhile to notice that different people approach polyamory, not just in different ways, but for different reasons. For some, as you describe yourself (and several have affirmed in comments), the desire for polyamory is intrinsic, independent of partners. My own desire for polyamory is different – depending on circumstances, I could be content with one relationship or a handful. A lot of the most important circumstances, as I see it, boil down to people getting their needs met.
Polyamory, like bisexuality, is something I DO. It isn’t something that’s important to my identity. I recognize that other people have different desires, different ways of structuring their self-image. If someone says, “Polyamory is not just something I do, it’s a key part of what I am,” I can respect that insight, even though it does not apply to me.
Do you want to call me a dilettante? Say I must not be “really” poly, because my motives don’t agree with yours? (In fact, my motives seem to support the “utter bunk” that seems to be such an enduring idea.) I am not doing polyamory for the sake of polyamory itself. I am only doing it for the happiness of myself and my partners and a few dear friends.
Of all the people doing polyamory, I don’t know how many are doing it from intrinsic motivations, and how many are doing it just to meet their needs. There are probably a bunch of people with mixed motivations, and more who haven’t thought about the question before. And you’d get different numbers if you considered the “organized” polyamory community, rather than just going looking for everyone who did any kind of consensual romantic arrangement other than monogamy.
I think it’s worthwhile to notice that different people approach polyamory, not just in different ways, but for different reasons. For some, as you describe yourself (and several have affirmed in comments), the desire for polyamory is intrinsic, independent of partners. My own desire for polyamory is different – depending on circumstances, I could be content with one relationship or a handful. A lot of the most important circumstances, as I see it, boil down to people getting their needs met.
Polyamory, like bisexuality, is something I DO. It isn’t something that’s important to my identity. I recognize that other people have different desires, different ways of structuring their self-image. If someone says, “Polyamory is not just something I do, it’s a key part of what I am,” I can respect that insight, even though it does not apply to me.
Do you want to call me a dilettante? Say I must not be “really” poly, because my motives don’t agree with yours? (In fact, my motives seem to support the “utter bunk” that seems to be such an enduring idea.) I am not doing polyamory for the sake of polyamory itself. I am only doing it for the happiness of myself and my partners and a few dear friends.
Of all the people doing polyamory, I don’t know how many are doing it from intrinsic motivations, and how many are doing it just to meet their needs. There are probably a bunch of people with mixed motivations, and more who haven’t thought about the question before. And you’d get different numbers if you considered the “organized” polyamory community, rather than just going looking for everyone who did any kind of consensual romantic arrangement other than monogamy.
Re: Kelly
Ruth, your recent responses make me curious about your history. “Polyamory” can be practiced carelessly and callously, and I’ve seen lifetime scars left as a result. Most of us have a horror story or three, despite our best intentions (and sometimes because of our less than noble intentions), because we are learning as we go along. Not only learning about polyamory, but learning about ourselves – about who we are and what is right for each of us in our own lives.
In order to truly judge this situation, it’s important to understand the context in which it rests. Your words indicate a particular philosophy and world view. In a world where there can only be one wife, any woman who wishes the same can only be a usurper. It becomes a competition, and the man who would try to have both can only be doing so out of greed.
This is not easy on any of us. We are doing the best that we can with the situation we have. And all told, we have not done that badly. The decisions the three of us are making now come out of a set of assumptions that I don’t believe you share. Try to switch out your lenses for a moment and look at the three of us with the assumption that it is possible to have more than one life partner in an ethical and responsible way. Franklin and Kelly made a commitment to each other to share their lives together. Franklin and I have also made that commitment.
I would never force myself into Kelly’s life and Kelly’s home if she did not want me there, nor would I ever tell her that she cannot have a relationship with Franklin. These ideas are absurd. Regardless of the challanges that Kelly and I face and the damage that has been done between us, she has an unequivocable right to be in a relationship with Franklin. It is a consequence of their love, of their history and of their commitment to each other. It stands alone and it is sacred and I hold it as such. This is the way I conduct my life and view the relationships that I touch. This is not a special treatment that is reserved for the wife. The respect I give a relationship isn’t based on where it falls in the heirarchy. This is the way I treat every single person who crosses my path. You have the right to define your relationships as you wish to. I don’t care if we are friends, lovers or life partners – It is your right. Franklin has the right to choose whom he loves and how he defines those relationships. I trust that he will listen to my concerns and cherish my feelings. I trust that he will take care of me and our relationship. I trust him down to my toes, and that’s all I need.
Respect and care are a gift. Mistreat that gift for too long and you will lose it. I cannot be asked to hold and cherish and respect a relationship that in turn treats me as if I am expendable. Franklin and I are also life partners.
And I deserve respect too.
I would never force myself into Kelly’s home. I would never tell her she cannot have a relationship with Franklin. I would never tell her she cannot live with Franklin. That is absurd. I don’t have that right. I believe it would be 100% wrong for me to do any of those things.
And it’s wrong for her to try to do those things to me. I want to share a future with Franklin that includes a home together. Kelly will always be included in that because she has a right to be here – I am only asking her to reciprocate the respect I give her.
There is a year long history here and a failed and painful attempt to have a primary/secondary relationship. It may be hard to imagine how one person could have two primary relationship.. It may appear that this kind of situation is unsustainable. It may look like the person in the middle is getting a pretty sweet deal. It may look like Kelly has been victimized and forced into this position. Thankfully, outer appearences rarely betray the truth.
Re: Kelly
I was wondering what happened. I’ve been away from reading journals for the entire year, and come back to find gone and drama springing forth in a new light. I look forward to talking to you guys more in a few days. =D
I feel the same way.
I feel the same way.
Re: Your comment
Shelly
Thank you for your comment, though it actually surprised me that it hadn’t come from either Franklin or Kelly. And it is true of course, that each individual has his/her own ideas and moral outlooks on relationships, and the form they should take in their lives.
However, it wasn’t all that long ago that Franklin was ‘in love’ with another woman, and he also wanted her to move in with him and Kelly. I guess he’s moved on from there.
And it seems to me at least, from what Kelly has written, that she DOESN’T want you to move in, that she DOESN’T view you as ‘family’, as Franklin does, and in anyone’s language, this is a receipe for disaster. Time will tell I guess.
My history, since you mentioned it, comes from being involved with someone not dissimilar to Franklin (albeit several years younger). Franklin says how it is not the ‘inadequacies of his partner/s’ that drives him to look for others. I think there is probably something inadequate in FRANKLIN – a self-indulgent bent – and that maybe nothing and nobody will ever be able to make up for what he lacks. By the way, there’s something called a ‘Puer Aeternus’ – maybe Franklin would like to research this and see if anything ‘fits’. Harsh judgement? Sure! But it’s MY view, from this side of the world, and when you write an on-line web journal and ask for comments, you invariably get them, even the ones you don’t like.
It’s funny you know Shelly, how you can feel empathy for someone just by the words they write….I feel this way about Kelly – she wants to please everyone, and will probably end up putting herself last, and nobody being all that pleased anyway.
I wish her all the luck in the world – I hope she knows that. Cheers!
A thought for Franklin
‘If a man has been compromised early in life by someone in a position of trust, maybe even a family member, it can cause him to be resentful, defensive, with a need to get even, or to escape. In a revolt against the earthly, the conservative, the possessive, he may begin a long ascent into a flight upward and become the Ascending Son, the Peter Pan or ‘Eternal Boy’, the moth ‘mad for the light’.
A thought for Franklin
‘If a man has been compromised early in life by someone in a position of trust, maybe even a family member, it can cause him to be resentful, defensive, with a need to get even, or to escape. In a revolt against the earthly, the conservative, the possessive, he may begin a long ascent into a flight upward and become the Ascending Son, the Peter Pan or ‘Eternal Boy’, the moth ‘mad for the light’.