Occasionally I get some interesting letters.  Recently, I was contacted by a High School Honors student seeking information for a paper. Here’s what the student wrote:

Hello, [...] I am currently working on a research paper on polygamy. I found your information on the lovemore.com website and I was wondering if you would be willing to answer the following questions.

1. How does dating work in a polygamist relationship?

2. Did you choose to be a polygamist? If so what made you choose to be a polygamist?

3. Did you grow up in a polygamist family? If not how does being a polygamist affect your non-polygamist family?

4. How do the children interact with multiple mothers?

5. How does being a polygamist child affect childhood?

6. Do you have to be a certain religion to be a polygamist?

7. What are your feelings on Warren Jeffs?

8. Do you believe that Warren Jeffs is the reason polygamy is illegal in some states?

9. How does being a polygamist affect your day to day life?

10. Why do you believe polygamy is illegal in multiple states?

11. Does polygamy being illegal affect your day to day life?

12. Is there anything that you think that I should know about polygamy in order to write my paper?

Thank you for taking time to read my email and answering my questions

This email, while clearly interested in the topic and asking some worthwhile questions, shows the vast gulf in understanding in the general public of what polyamory and polygamy actually are.

Here’s my response:

Dear [    ]:

I’ve been debating how to answer your questions since your first message.  The issue, you see, is that you have contacted the wrong person to answer the questions you’ve asked.  I’m not a polygamist.  I practice *polyamory*. Here’s a quick definition:

Polyamory =
poly (derived from the Greek for ‘many’)
+
amory (derived from the Latin for ‘love’)

In other words,

Polyamory is the belief in and/or practice of multiple loving relationships, with the full knowledge and consent of those involved.

Polyamory and polygamy are not the same thing, though they share the same Greek root meaning “many.”  Polygamy, however, shares the root “gamy” with the word “monogamy,” which refers to human marriage customs.  (See more here: http://www.affixes.org/g/-gamy.html)

You can read more about my definition of polyamory at this blog entry:
http://blog.unchartedlove.com/?p=1147

If you’d like to know more about polyamory, you might want to look up some of the resources (websites, books, etc.) on this list:

http://blog.unchartedlove.com/?page_id=114

For more on the distinction between polyamory and polygamy, see the informative web page “Polygamy and Polyamory” a brochure by the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness: http://www.uupa.org/Literature/PolygamyComparison.htm

Best wishes on your paper,

Dawn

In addition to that letter, I’ve also compiled a DRAFT of a table highlighting some of the similarities and differences between polyamory and polygamy.  I’ve been hesitant to publish it, in part because I haven’t yet run it by any representatives from the groups discussed (other than polyamorists, where I’ve run the paper by some researchers into polyamory, a few months ago.) So if you, dear reader, identify with any of these groups, and you find areas that you feel need improvement, please do bring the matter/s to my attention (gently, if you can!) I wish to provide this list as a starting point for thought and discussion, not as a prescription for division.  I myself am not a social scientist and do not claim to be an “academic.”  The references and suggested readings listed are also not meant to be an exhaustive list, but instead a starting place for further research.

 

Polyamory	Polygamy (as popularly understood in US; aka religious polygyny) (1)
Some similarities
Multiple adult partners	Multiple adult partners
Deserving of human rights	Deserving of human rights
Stigmatized and misunderstood	Stigmatized and misunderstood
Lack of governmental or social recognition of family status	Lack of governmental or social recognition of family status
Some differences
Egalitarian (shared power in relationship)	Patriarchal (decisions and responsibility reserved to male head of family)
Structure not based in organized religion (though practitioners may be religious and/or spiritual)	Structure originates in religious doctrine or belief
Any combination and number of genders in relationship structure	Relationship structure limited to 1 man, multiple women
Mostly not prohibited in the US (2)	Mostly prohibited in the US (3)
About love/romantic relationships	About marriage relationships
Long-term commitment optional	Long-term commitment a requirement
May be sexually open (individuals in the relationship may or may not have additional sexual relationships outside of the polyamorous relationship under discussion)	Always sexually closed (individuals within the relationship may only have sex within the relationship)
Same gender sexual relationships may be allowed	Heterosexual relationships only
Allows for gender fluidity and other non-normative gender expressions	Binary gender expression only
Relationship focused (May or may not consider themselves part of a family)	Family-focused

© 2013 Dawn M. Davidson

(1) Other forms of polygamy exist worldwide that are not based in religious doctrine or belief. This table does not address those and is not meant to imply that they either don’t exist, nor that they are the same as the religious form of polygamy discussed here. This table exists primarily to clarify the most common misperception of polyamory being “the same as polygamy,” as represented by, for instance the TV shows “Big Love” or “Sister Wives.”

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy and http://jezebel.com/5981095/polyandry-is-actually-way-more-popular-than-anthropologists-have-thought

(2) Cohabiting polyamorous groups may be prohibited by bigamy laws in some states, e.g., Utah.  See also http://non-monodiscourse.blogspot.com/

(3) Some Christian polygamy groups advocate marrying and then getting a legal divorce in order to create a “spiritual marriage” only. This form of polygamy (in essence, a form of serial marriage) would be legal in the US. (Source: http://www.christianpolygamy.com/)

For more information, see also:

“Polygamy and Polyamory” a brochure by the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness: http://www.uupa.org/Literature/PolygamyComparison.htm

Do you have anything to add to this table?  Any great references, important line items, or any comments or questions? As always, feel free to contact me on my Love Outside the Box webpage, to comment below, or to visit my Facebook page, LoveOTB. I welcome your discussion and feedback.

May you always love boldly, safely, and well,

~♥ Dawn

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

[© 2013 Dawn M. Davidson]

I was recently introduced to a new resource for managing safer sex and testing results.  It’s called Qpid.me, and it claims to be “A free, simple way to share your verified STD results” by registering with them, and having your results sent directly from your doctor to their private database.

Here’s what they say on their website:

To make informed sexual health decisions, you must not only be informed about your own health, but also about your partner’s health as well. We enable you to privately share your STD [Sexually Transmitted Disease, aka Sexually Transmitted Infection or STI] status however you choose. We believe that sharing is a good thing and that it can lead to better sexual health decisions, more (safe) sex and fewer STDs.

The service is limited, and doesn’t include a couple of important STIs (e.g., HSV, aka Herpes), and so far doesn’t seem to include a way to make any statement (or have your doctor make a statement) about those STIs, either.  Here’s the list of what they DO cover (from their FAQ):

This entry in my Agreements Workbook Series (aka “KISSable Agreements) series, comprises Reasons 3, 4, & 5 of the Five Reasons (Most) Agreements Fail. Find out below what to do when you and your partner/s have differing interpretations of the Agreement, or there isn’t something new to do in place of an old behavior, or if you just shouldn’t have made that Agreement in the first place.

Questions or comments?  As always, feel free to comment below, contact me here, or on my Facebook Page, Love Outside The Box!

~♥ Dawn

PS: It’s after Valentine’s Day… but you can still get my Valentine’s Day coaching discounts.   Hurry though, since they’re going away at the end of February!

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

3) Differing Interpretations of the Agreement

Sometimes you think you have an Agreement, but you really don’t. It’s like the classic situation portrayed so ably in Woody Allen’s 1977 film, Annie Hall. [see Figure, below]

Sometimes you’re even using the same words, but to each person they mean slightly (or radically!) different things. Perhaps you’ve found one of your ambiguous terms (see Tip #2a), or perhaps you and your Agreement Partner have different Secret Rulebook entries [see RelationDancing: Consciously Creating What You Really Want In Your Relating, by Mark Michael Lewis] Whatever the case, these sorts of fundamental misunderstandings do sometimes occur, even when everyone’s doing their best.

What to do?

Again, the action to take is most likely to revisit the Agreement, renegotiate it with the new information, and possibly clarify or change the wording. Other things that might be helpful are practicing compassion, assuming positive intent (and/or good faith), and remembering that different is not necessarily better/worse.

4) Agreement Was Not Additive

Remember that in Tip #3 (Make Additive Agreements) we discussed creating Agreements that gave new behavioral options when encountering old situations. So rather than agreeing to “stop spending too much money on your other partner/s,” you might wish to agree to “only spend $x on each partner per month.” The second option gives a concrete alternative to the behavior that’s being changed. Failing to provide a replacement behavior is one of the main reasons for an Agreement to fail, in large part because humans are creatures of habit, and habits are notoriously hard to break, once formed [http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/07/how-to-banish-bad-habits-and-control-temptations.php].

What to do?

By now, you know the refrain!  Go back to your Agreements with the new knowledge.  What sort of replacement behavior might work for this situation? Perhaps you need several options? (Remember to make the Agreements KISSable, though!) And remember that everyone involved needs to own their part of the Agreement. Scapegoating isn’t additive, either.

5) Agreement Simply Can’t Work

Sometimes, even if you’ve tried as hard as you can, checked all the assumptions, looked at all the options, reviewed and brainstormed, and generally done everything in your power… sometimes you discover that there’s some reason that the Agreement simply cannot work. Maybe there’s a pre-existing commitment standing in the way.  Maybe you were trying an experiment, and you’ve discovered something new that tells you it just isn’t going to work. Maybe it’s just more effort than you’re willing or able to put in, for not enough return.  Whatever the reason, sometimes, you just can’t.

What to do?

So what happens then? First and foremost, practice compassion. Finding out that an Agreement can’t work is a piece of data.  It might have been a mistake, it might have been a failed experiment, but in any case,  an Agreement that can’t work isn’t a judgment on any party to the Agreement, nor is it necessarily an indication of moral failure, nor the imminent demise of the relationship.  People make mistakes.  Sometimes people make big mistakes.  Remember that mistakes are part of learning.  Have some compassion for yourself and your partner/s, take a breath, and don’t panic.

Next, do what you always do for a broken Agreement, just on a slightly bigger scale. A small amount of tweaking won’t fix this one, unfortunately.  Is there a different Agreement, or set of Agreements, that you can make? Do you need the help of a mediator, a counselor, or a physician? Evaluate the situation as clearly and calmly as possible, and see if there are clear next steps.

Sometimes those next steps might mean writing new Agreements… and sometimes they might mean changing the form of the relationship.  If you suspect that there’s something in need of fundamental change in your relationship, you might want to consult Appendix C (Is It Over?), or check with a counselor, therapist, or mediator (see the suggested Resources.)  In any case, remember that just because an Agreement or a relationship needs to change or end, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a failure… it could mean that you’re ready for graduation [ref Richard Bach.]

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

[© 2013 Dawn M. Davidson]

Note that these entries are all rough drafts, and thus are probably missing things like references. If you know the perfect reference to add, feel free to suggest it! I always like to add to my resource collection.

[Previous Entry: Reasons 1 & 2 of the Five Reasons Agreements Fail]

[Return to the Table of Contents for the Agreements Workbook Series]

[Return to the first text entry in the Agreements Workbook series]

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

Click here to get personalized help with your own Agreements!

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

This entry in my Agreements Workbook Series (aka “KISSable Agreements) series, is the third of three discussing some Caveats and Assumptions in making Agreements. Read more below about cultural mismatches and agency in making mutual Agreements.

And remember, I’ll be giving a short presentation on the topic of Agreements at the upcoming Academic Poly Conference in Berkeley, CA, this weekend (February 15-17). My presentation is currently scheduled for mid-afternoon on Saturday in the parallel non-academic track.

Questions or comments?  As always, feel free to comment below, contact me here, or on my FB Page, Love Outside The Box!

Oh, and Happy Valentine’s Day!

Remember, no matter what makes your love special, no matter how long or short that love is, no matter who and how many you love…

Love is always OK.  And so are YOU.

~♥ Dawn

PS:  Remember to check out my Valentine’s coaching specials before they’ve flown away like Cupid!

PPS: See you at the  Academic Poly Conference in Berkeley, CA, this weekend (February 15-17)? I’ll be there!

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

Caveats and Assumptions (Part 3 of 3)

General alignment in cultural norms

Occasionally you’ll encounter a situation in which it appears that everyone is attempting to create functional Agreements, but things still aren’t working. Sometimes this can be traced back to a mismatch in cultural norms. There are some cultures (e.g, the Southern United States, or some situations in Japan, among others) where direct requests are often considered rude or gauche. This can make it extremely difficult to create functional Agreements using the patterns outlined in this book.  Especially if you’re dealing with people from two or more different cultures, you may want to get some help from someone who understands both/all cultures, to make sure that some fundamental misunderstanding isn’t occurring, or some unintentional slight being offered.  Other styles of negotiating or making Agreements may need to be employed.

All parties are able to negotiate freely

It’s also important that each person be able to make the Agreements in the first place. This is closely related to “Competency” above, but not quite the same thing. In particular, you’ll want to make sure that there are no pre-existing Agreements that interfere with the ability of each party to make and keep these Agreements, e.g., Agreements with a spouse or Primary partner, M/s Agreements that assign this ability to one party, and the like.  Even Agreements with bosses or other non-romantic relationships might interfere with some Relationship Agreements. You might also want to review the list in “With Whom Might You Make Agreements” at the beginning of the book [p. ___] to make sure you’re negotiating with someone who can negotiate with you.

And if you’re the one in a pre-existing relationship, you’ll want to make sure that you’re clear what you can and cannot negotiate around.  Is there someone else that needs to be brought into the discussion? Is there another relationship that needs to change first? Or if permission or gatekeeping are chafing, and/or your power exchange isn’t completely by choice, then maybe you want to re-examine the structure of all your relationships. Remember that it is always about the Win-Win-Win, and the relationship needs your needs in order to succeed.

[Next up: starting The Five Reasons Agreements Fail (and what to do when they do!)]

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

[© 2013 Dawn M. Davidson]

Note that these entries are all rough drafts, and thus are probably missing things like references. If you know the perfect reference to add, feel free to suggest it! I always like to add to my resource collection.

[Next Entry: Reasons 1 & 2 of the Five Reasons Agreements Fail ]

[Previous Entry: Agreements: Good Faith Efforts (2 of 3 on Caveats and Assumptions)]

[Return to the Table of Contents for the Agreements Workbook Series]

[Return to the first text entry in the Agreements Workbook series]

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

Click here to get personalized help with your own Agreements!

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

“There’s no One Right Way to be Polyamorous, but there are plenty of Wrong ways!”
– Miss Poly Manners

Polyamorous people are often known to proclaim that one of the advantages of being poly is that there is no “One Right Way” to do it.  This allows us the freedom to create our own “designer relationships,” that fit the needs and wants of the individual partners, rather than trying to shoehorn ourselves into a set of “standard” or “societal” expectations that don’t. This is great in theory, but sometimes falls down in practice.* And it turns out Miss Poly Manners is right about all the ways that there are to be wrong.

Deborah Anapol (author of Polyamory in the 21st Century: Love and Intimacy with Multiple Partners, in a recent article in Psychology Today, lists “Five Ways Polyamory Can Fail”:

Pitfall #1  Using the same words to mean different things
Pitfall #2  Taking on more relationships than you actually have time and energy for
Pitfall #3  Agreeing to polyamory and then having a “secret” affair
Pitfall #4  Making promises you can’t keep
Pitfall #5  Trying to transition quickly and smoothly from being discovered engaging in a secret affair to creating an open relationship

You’ll want to read the rest of the article for more detailed information, since (as usual) she has some good observations.  The first thing I noticed, though, is that Anapol’s list overlaps with my own 5 Reasons Agreements Fail (from my “KISSable Agreements” workbook series) in a couple of areas.  Here’s my list:

Five Reasons Agreements Fail (from “KISSable Agreements,” by Dawn Davidson)

1) Simply Forgetting
2) Missed Contingency
3) Differing Interpretations of the Agreement
4) Agreement Was Not Additive
5) Agreement Simply Can’t Work

You can see that in her Pitfall #1 and my Reason #3, we both talk about making sure that when you’re using the same words, you’re actually talking about the same thing!  I also cover some of this ground in Tip #2a, in the sub-section “Avoid Ambiguous Terms.”

Anapol also suggests in Pitfall #4 that “making promises you can’t keep” is a surefire way to have Polyamory fail.  I agree, and I think it doesn’t apply just to polyamory, but to any Agreements (whether it’s in a polyamorous context or not.) As you can see above, Reason #5 that Agreements can fail is the “Agreement Simply Can’t Work,” (aka “I just shouldn’t have agreed to that”.) It covers situations where you thought you could agree to something and found out later that it’s beyond your capacity to do so, or where some other Agreement got in the way (maybe one to another person that you forgot about in the moment, or that you weren’t completely clear about at the time.)  Whether or not you intended to keep the Agreement, though, the fact is that you can’t … and that means you made a promise you couldn’t keep (i.e., fell into Pitfall #1.)

The 5 Reasons posts aren’t up yet (sorry for the delay!), but all of the Agreements Workbook Entries I’ve already posted are here: http://blog.unchartedlove.com/?tag=workbook. I’ll have the first of the 5 Reasons posts (on the topic of Caveats and Assumptions) up tomorrow (Sat 2/2). :^)

In the meantime, I’m very curious to know… what reasons have YOU experienced that caused your poly relationships or Agreements to fail? What did you do to recover when those happened?  As always, feel free to comment below, contact me via my webpage, or on my Facebook Page, Love Outside The Box.

May all your poly (or other) relationships succeed more often than they fail!

~♥ Dawn

PS:  Did you know I’m running a Valentine’s Day special on my coaching packages? If you’d like to talk more about how your Agreements are working (or aren’t!), I’d be happy to set up a time to meet in person (in the SF Bay Area), by phone, or via some other remote means (e.g., Skype).

[*That brings up a favorite joke of mine: Q: What's the difference between theory and practice? A:  In theory, there isn't one, but in practice, there is!]

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

[© 2013 Dawn M. Davidson]

[See the Table of Contents for the Agreements Workbook Series]

[Return to the first text entry in the Agreements Workbook series]

Here at last is Agreements Tip #10, “Check In Periodically / Re-negotiate If Needed,” from my Agreements Workbook series! Learn more below about checking in, keeping perspective, and what to do if someone is “pushing the envelope.”

Questions or comments about any of these Agreements Workbook entries?  Feel free to comment below, contact me here, or on my FB Page, Love Outside The Box!

~♥ Dawn

PS:  Like my Love Outside the Box logo? You can get t-shirts and other stuff with my logo (and other poly stuff) at Zazzle. There’s plenty of time before Valentine’s Day to order customized T-shirts, mugs, or heart-shaped ornaments for all of your sweeties. You can get bulk discounts on ornaments and mugs, too!

Love Outside The Box (white on dark) T-shirts by LoveOutsideTheBox
Create your own t-shirts online at Zazzle.

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

Tip #10: Check in periodically/re-negotiate if needed

Check in as you go

One of the key points in consciously constructed Agreements is that in most cases they can be re-negotiated.  Remember that (in this workbook, at least!) we’re not talking about legally binding Agreements that require a judge or a lawyer to change. But how do you know when it’s appropriate to make a change?

To begin with, it’s important to keep in touch with the Agreements you’ve made. Especially with Time Limited Agreements (but also with any sort of Agreements), it’s very important to note when things are not working, and to address such issues as soon as possible. Don’t wait till things break down completely before talking to your partner/s about any issues!  That just courts disaster in the form of broken Agreements, and broken trust.

Be flexible and creative

Remember that these sorts of Agreements are not “set in stone,” so it’s important to remain flexible and responsible to your partner’s needs, while still honoring your own as well. (Remember that the relationship needs your needs, AND those of your partner/s! p.___) Be open to renegotiating from a collaborative space. The more flexible and creative that both/all partners are, the more likely it is that you’ll find something that works for everyone.

Keep perspective

As you check in and perhaps renegotiate, it’s important to keep perspective.  Not all Agreements will work perfectly in their initial form the first time!  Some give and take is probably necessary in the process, and sometimes one or another partner will need to “overlook” something that’s annoying, but not really all that important in the larger scheme of things. Take a step back and consider the Agreement in the context of your whole relationship, and each of your lives.  What’s important? What might be ok to let drop, or to negotiate a bit around? Here are a few ideas:

Probably important:

• Safer sex boundaries
• Doing what you’ve promised to do and/or someone else is relying on you to do
• Getting the kids to school or yourself to work on time
• Actions impacting the family finances to a great degree

Probably not that important:

• The direction the toilet paper roll unrolls
• Whether you squeeze the toothpaste in the middle
• Forgetting to write down what you spent on your coffee date one time (unless, for instance, you flew to Paris to do it…)
• Returning from a date five minutes late one time (again, a pattern of this could be a warning sign; see “Pushing the Boundaries” on p. ___[in a future entry].)

If one of you says something like “Damn it, you put the toilet paper roll on the wrong way despite the agreement! I’m moving out!” you can bet that that person has lost perspective. Consider taking a break from your negotiations for 20 minutes or more [ref] to let that person calm down and regain their equilibrium.

Pushing the envelope: A warning sign

While it’s important for all partners to remain flexible, it’s also important to recognize when an Agreement is not really working, and is in danger of getting bent or broken. One of the biggest signs of an Agreement in peril is “pushing the envelope. This means one or more partners are repeatedly engaging in “grey area” activities and/or violating the spirit of the Agreement, even if not the letter of it. Both of these are warning signs that something is not actually working, and are a call to renegotiate sooner rather than later, before the Agreement gets broken.

Example:

Let’s say TJ, Sandy, and Loren have an agreement not to kiss anyone else outside of their own triad.  One day, Sandy goes to an event and kisses someone on the cheek, and then justifies it by saying “it was just on the cheek”! Depending on the reasons behind that Agreement, TJ and Loren might be ok with this behavior once, or even occasionally. But if Sandy repeatedly “forgets” this Agreement, and/or pushes the envelope even further (e.g., “it was just a peck on the lips; we didn’t French kiss or anything!”) then this may indicate that Sandy really shouldn’t have made this Agreement at all (Reason #5 of the Five Reasons; see p. ___ [in a future entry]), or that there is some other unmet need of Sandy’s that needs to be addressed through discussion and negotiation. Failing to address the boundary-pushing behavior, and therefore the unmet needs, is entirely too likely to result in the Agreement getting broken, and in subsequent hurt feelings and broken trust, which are much more difficult to repair.

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

[© 2013 Dawn M. Davidson]

Note that these entries are all rough drafts, and thus are probably missing things like references. If you know the perfect reference to add, feel free to suggest it! I always like to add to my resource collection.

[Next Entry: When Agreements Fail: Competency ]

[Related Entry: 2 Lists of 5 Ways to Fail in Polyamory]

[Previous Entry: http://blog.unchartedlove.com/?p=2222]

[Return to the Table of Contents for the Agreements Workbook Series]

[Return to the first text entry in the Agreements Workbook series]

This is Tip #8: Write It Down, in my Agreements Workbook series.  Whether you write them in a fancy book or keep them in an online file, it’s a good idea to write down the Agreements that you make. Find out why and how in the entry below.

Questions or comments about any of these Agreements Workbook entries?  Feel free to comment below, contact me here, or on my FB Page, Love Outside The Box!

~♥ Dawn

PS:  Do you want to pick my brain about anything to do with poly? Get my help in creating Agreements between you and your partner/s?  If so, you’ll be glad to know I’m running some holiday specials!  Contact me through the end of December 15th and make arrangements for sessions to be completed by the end of December. I’d love to help YOU design your own best relationships!

PPS:  I’m raising my rates in January, so you might want to call me Real Soon Now. ;^)

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

Agreements Tip #8: Write it down

One of the common issues with Agreements is that once they’re made, we eventually forget about them.  When you make the Agreement, you’re certain that you’ll never forget. But human memory being what it is — i.e., faulty! — eventually someone is going to forget something. (In fact, that’s the first of the Five Reasons Agreements Fail: Just Forgetting! We’ll come back to those on p.___.) Having a written copy will also help to avoid arguments about “that’s not what I meant!” The easiest way to deal with all of this is to simply write down your Agreements.

Keep Agreements all in one place

It’s a good idea to keep them all together in one place, whether that’s in a book, or on a computer, or up on the web somewhere.  The advantage of using (for instance) a bound blank book is that you can physically sign the page, to indicate that you’ve both/all seen and agreed to this. Having only one copy, however, can occasionally be inconvenient.

The advantage (and to some degree disadvantage) of having the Agreements in an electronic form is that it’s easier to make changes when you need to update things. If you want to keep a record of the various forms the Agreement has taken, it might be good to keep the document in some software that has the ability to “track changes” or keep a specific record of the revisions.

ell, as others said elsewhere, that was anticlimactic.  Dan Savage posted his “pro-poly-identity” column, following on his letter of last week in which he baldly stated that polyamory is not an identity.  Sadly, what he posted in his actual column was pretty paltry, amounting to a couple of tweets. There are some decent comments buried in the comments section again, though.

So if you want more discussion on this issue, you might want to check out:

Anita Wagner Illig’s Practical Polyamory blog (she also posted this in the comments to Dan’s thread)

Franklin Veaux’ LiveJournal entry “Dan Savage runs off the rails.”

There are a couple of interesting comments in my own comment section in the last post as well.

I’ve got more to say on the topic of identity, but not tonight.

Here’s hoping you are happy with both what you do AND who you are, whatever those are!

~♥ Dawn

PS: Got Jealousy? Schedule a 1/2 hour free consultation with me, and get my Jealousy Judo pdf of tools to use to manage jealousy in yourself.  Because jealousy is no fun!

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

[© 2012 Dawn M. Davidson]

he inimitable Dan Savage has stirred things up again, this time by saying it’s not possible for polyamory to be an identity:

Poly is not a sexual identity, PP, it’s not a sexual orientation. It’s not something you are, it’s something you do. — Dan Savage, 11/21/12

For the record (although Dan’s actual advice to Polyamorous Polymath isn’t so bad — basically “if you really can’t compromise on this, then do both of you a favor and end the relationship as gracefully and as quickly as possible”), I definitely disagree with his statement around polyamory and identity. I think that you should be able to identify however you damn well please, as well as loving (and/or being sexually attracted to) whomever and however many people works for you (and for them.) I don’t think these are mutually exclusive concepts. (For some more good poly critique of Dan’s original post, check out Anita Wagner Ilig’s post in her Practical Polyamory blog.)

In a thread on the Poly Researchers list, author Meg Barker (Rewriting the Rules) said,

It is different things for different people, and sometimes at different times for the same person.

“…and for the same person with *different people.*”

As an example, I have some partners where the “fundamental harmonic” is kinky, and some for whom it is not. I literally cannot have vanilla sex with one partner, and I never or rarely have kinky sex with another. It’s about the dynamic BETWEEN individuals, not about some static quality of each person. The fact that there’s a “fundamental harmonic” doesn’t mean that other harmonics are less “real” or less “true” for any particular interaction.

By extension, I think it’s possible for people to be somewhere on the mono to poly/open scale, and to be in a fundamentally poly dynamic with one (or more) partner/s, and in a fundamentally mono dynamic with another.  I think they can APPEAR to change over time, much as bisexual people appear to change over time, when really, it’s more that they’re expressing different parts of themselves at different times with different people.  People are complex, after all!

I even referred to this (in a different context) a couple of months back in my blog:

“…I think it’s by far the most common case that polyamory includes sex. In my definition, polyamory most often includes sex, in the exact same way that monogamy most often includes sex, but can be experienced without it; they’re both relationship styles after all. But just as it’s possible to have a celibate or sex-free monogamous relationship,  it’s quite possible that someone might identify as polyamorous but not be having sex or in a sexual relationship.  The presence or absence of  sex is not like a light switch after all. Otherwise, we’d all walk around changing our status whenever we had a sexual encounter (or didn’t): Now polyamorous, now celibate, momentarily monogamous, polyamorous again ….” (http://blog.unchartedlove.com/?p=1594)

Ultimately, I am concluding, I do view polyamory as an orientation — whether a sexual one or “only a relationship one” pretty much doesn’t matter in this case — which might for some of us be/become an identity. As Jessica Burde said on the PLN list, I think it’s possible for poly to be BOTH “something you are” AND “something you do.”  Which, I’ll note, can be true of being “Queer” as well (much as Dan might prefer to skip over that part):  You can certainly engage in same-sex sexual behaviors, without identifying as “queer”; and you can certainly identify as gay, for instance, while not being in any currently sexual relationship whatsoever.

Sarah Taub mentioned in the version of this thread on the PLN list that she views the genesis of this tension (at least in the US, and I’ll add, possibly the driving force behind Dan’s need to exclude polyamory as an orientation or an identity) as being the struggle for rights and freedoms. The GLBT movement leaders largely chose to frame the discussion as a matter of “innate orientation,” saying that people should not be penalized for expressing their true nature (“we can’t help it.”) So therefore same-sex couples and families should not be penalized in terms of marriage rights and tax benefits, for instance, because “they can’t help being who they are.”

(This framework is, not incidentally, problematic for bisexuals (among others), since people who can choose to be in either a heterosexual or a homosexual relationship don’t fit well within an “I can’t help it” framework. This is undoubtedly at least part of why so many bi folk have felt dismissed, denigrated, or just erased by the GLBT rights activists over the years… and why poly folks and bisexuals seem to have found common cause in at least some cases.)

The polyamory contingent of the SF Pride Parade, on June 26 2005, marching under the registration of the Bay Area Bisexual Network (BABN.)

On the other hand, there’s another common framework for the “fairness” discussion that dates back at least to the founding of our country, which is the idea of “free choice.” This is what our doctrine of “freedom of religion” is based upon:  “everyone gets to choose whether and how to worship deity/spirit, without interference from the government” (at least in theory).

As Sarah said, GLBT activists have mostly used the first frame, and poly activists have mostly used the second.  There are some GLBT activists that choose the second frame (e.g., “everyone gets to choose whom they love, and whom they call family”), but by and large the differences in these frames can explain why the conversation comes up over and over again as a point of tension, and why (inexplicably to me, previously), so many GLBT folks seem to view polys as “the enemy” rather than natural allies.

I think ultimately, I’m with Bonefish, commenting on Dan’s blog, who says that whether or not polyamory is a sexual orientation (which arguably it’s not under most current definitions of “sexual orientation”), it most definitely CAN be an “identity.”  The point, ultimately, isn’t “orientation vs. choice.”  The point is actually that regardless of whether polyamory is something innate, or something chosen, it can still be a primary part of one’s identity. And no one — not Dan, not some church, not the government — has a right to tell me (or you!) what and who is important to me. I get to love who I love, and to say that, and I shouldn’t have to be ashamed of it, nor fear consequences for speaking out about it (though this latter is still unfortunately true for many people regarding employment and child custody issues in particular. See Woodhull’s Family Matters Project for more on “rights, recognition and respect for all families.”)

To sum up, I think that with regard to the issue of polyamory as identity, Dan has his loud mouth up his proverbial backside, and people have come out in force to tell him so.  What a shame he can’t recognize polyamorous people as potential allies if you doused us in glowpaint and shone a blacklight on us! I’ll surely be looking forward to seeing the responses he posts in next week’s promised follow up on the original post!  Should be very interesting indeed….

I’d be curious to know, by the way, how you identify. Feel free to fill out this quick checkbox form if you’d like. (You don’t even have to leave your email address for this one [ETA: and I've even made the name field optional, too].

May you have as much love as you want, need, and deserve (no matter what your orientation is!)

~♥ Dawn

PS: It’s kinda funny, actually, because I said some stuff recently that might be read as agreeing with Dan, that poly is something you do rather than are (here in my most recent Agreements Tip, #6.)  To clarify, though, I see it more as a case of AND rather than OR.  Yes, when making Agreements, it’s a good idea to keep sexual behaviors separate from relationship needs.  That’s more about how Agreements (especially ones around Safer Sex) work, though, and not about the validity of viewing polyamory (or GLBT, or…) as either behavior or orientation.

PPS: And as weird as it feels to say this, I find myself agreeing with Tim Graham (Note: a “right wing nutjob” according to Anita) when he says to Dan:

This seems a little bit arbitrary in the world of Anything Goes, doesn’t it? You may behave however you want sexually in Savage World, but the political dictionary is strictly maintained.

∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

[© 2012 Dawn M. Davidson]

In keeping with my WNFIN / NaNoWriMo  goal (mentioned in yesterday’s post) to finish a draft of my Agreements Workbook, here’s the next installment in the Agreements Workbook, Tip #4:  “Pay Attention to the Cost/Benefit Ratio” (aka The Fun Factor), which  is about creating balance, especially when one or more partners are being asked to give something up whether temporarily, or longer.

As always, if you have any questions or comments about these Agreements Workbook entries, feel free to contact me here, or on my FB Page, Love Outside The Box.

~♥ Dawn

PS: Want to talk more specifically about your own situation? I’ll be happy to do a mini-session for you for free. Just drop me a line!

 ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥ ∞ ♥

4) Pay Attention to the Cost/Benefit Ratio

Face it, some things are just more fun than others. And giving up something fun in exchange for doing something less fun, isn’t fun! While fun certainly isn’t the only thing in life, and may not be the best measure of the worth of a particular activity, it is important to consider when making Agreements. It’s especially important if one person is being asked to give up something fun — whether temporarily, or longer-term — in order to support their partner’s (or partners’) comfort or needs. As I discussed above [p. ____], the relationship needs your needs. Therefore, it’s a good idea to try to keep some balance by making sure that the cost/benefit ratio and/or “fun factor” is sufficient to make it possible to keep the Agreement without a lot of stress or a build-up of resentment.

Balancing everyone’s needs can be challenging!

One way to go about this is to substitute something else that’s as much or more fun than the thing you’re doing without. For instance, you might decide that, although wheat gives you a rash and therefore you can’t eat pie or cake, you don’t have problems with chocolate or ice cream, and so you substitute one of those for dessert. Each one is relatively the same amount of “fun” and so you’re unlikely to feel upset at getting one, but not the other. Conversely, substituting a coconut macaroon for a chocolate-chip cookie is not going to work as well if you don’t like or can’t eat coconut. The cost outweighs any potential fun of eating the cookie.  You might decide to forego the cookies altogether, and maybe feel deprived about it, or resentful.

Why is this important?  Because resentment leads to bad feelings, an imbalance in the “Magic Relationship Ratio,” and eventually to the destruction of the relationship, according to John Gottman, a prominent researcher on relationships. [refs] While it’s possible (and in fact necessary) to overcome relationship “glitches” with “repair attempts,” if resentments and deprivations and an overall feeling of “out of balance” persist long enough, they will be toxic to the relationship. Consequently, it’s best to avoid creating the resentments in the first place, if at all possible.

Similarly, it’s best to avoid making Agreements that are difficult to make, or lead to the relationship feeling like a “chore.” This also will lead to an imbalance in the Magic Relationship Ratio, and the eventual erosion of the relationship.

Let’s look at an example in negotiating a safer sex Agreement.  It’s possible that, for various reasons, one lover might ask another to forego having intercourse with a new lover, a particular lover, or lovers who are not inside of a “condom compact” or other Agreement. However, the people making the Agreement may have mutually decided that tantra/energy sex, or BDSM/kink activities are allowable with that partner or partners.  Or maybe it’s the reverse, and sex is ok, but only one person ever calls this person “Master.” Whatever the “fun” things are, only those involved with the relationship can decide which things are of more or less equal “fun” value. But if everyone agrees that they are of equal value, and agrees that the substitution is ok, then it’ll make the Agreement easier to follow.

However, if one person tries to dictate to the other/s based on their own “fun” scale, without consulting their partner/s, it’s less likely to work well. It’s important to remember that things aren’t of equal value or fun to each person, and therefore the cost of giving them up may not be the same for any two people, even if it appears on the surface to be “fair.”  For instance, giving up “Penis in Vagina (PIV) intercourse” might be easy if you’re a Kinsey-4 bisexual woman, but much more difficult if you’re a straight male who doesn’t much like oral sex (I’ve heard tell there are some like that! . So making a blanket Agreement to have “only oral sex with outside partners” would place a greater burden on the hypothetical straight male, than on the K-4 bisexual woman. His selection of partners might be significantly affected, while hers might not be affected at all, or only slightly. The cost/benefit ratio of this Agreement will not be the same for each person, even though the Agreement otherwise appears to be “fair.”

The 12-Step programs utilize this cost-benefit ratio in some ways.  One way is by substituting going to meetings, instead of engaging in the addictive behavior. For most people in these programs, drinking (for instance) is going to be a lot more fun than going to meetings, on a case-by-case basis. It’s not that the meetings are no fun at all (hanging out with friends can be great, in fact), but relatively speaking, the addiction is likely to seem more fun to most people, especially in the early stages of recovery. However, the “fun” side is not the only factor in the ratio. Over the long term, the cost of drinking (in terms of money, relationship issues, work problems, etc) is going to be far higher than the cost of attending the meetings. So the eventual cost/benefit ratio is favorable enough to many people to make it worth the effort of letting go of the former behavior.[1]

The point of this section is not so much to dictate any particular behaviors or things that “should” or “should not” be in whatever Agreements that you make (that will be as individual as you are), as it is to remind you to keep the cost-benefit ratio in mind when you do make potentially “imbalanced” Agreements.  Sometimes you can work around an unfavorable cost-benefit ratio by “sweetening the pot” (e.g., “I’ll make dinner for you on the day after I have an overnight date”.) Other times you might choose to experiment with a Time-limited Agreement (e.g., “I don’t feel comfortable doing that for a month, but I might be able to do it for 2 weeks, and then we can revisit it.) [See p. ___ on Time-Limited Agreements.]  However you choose to address it, it will be easier to keep the Agreements if you’ve thought about these things in advance, and if the cost-benefit ratio is generally fair, and not skewed against one or more people in the Agreement.