The OT thread V1

[ironyusa]

Haha, dude yeah... rules exists. Rules in a relationship exist. Since you are jumping ship with semantics, all rules are understood principles that govern conduct. You have your definition of poly "rules" and other people have their poly "rules" and relationship is where they coincide. Funny though, I mention rules and you bug-out yet say your poly stuff isn't about freedom? Lol, you can't have it both ways. Poly isn't free and every relationship has rules/ boundaries. Intimacy is the means of defining and redefining those rules and growing individually and together

To summarize it; all relationships have rules and intimacy requires commitment. Poly isn't good for either.

Look, if you just want a friend with benefits, that's ok. You don't need to try and justify it with the poly stuff. That's all you have and can ever have. Nothing meaningful. Nothing legitimate.


You also avoided the discussion about children.

[cockerpunk]

Haha, dude yeah... rules exists. Rules in a relationship exist. Since you are jumping ship with semantics, all rules are understood principles that govern conduct. You have your definition of poly "rules" and other people have their poly "rules" and relationship is where they coincide. Funny though, I mention rules and you bug-out yet say your poly stuff isn't about freedom? Lol, you can't have it both ways. Poly isn't free and every relationship has rules/ boundaries. Intimacy is the means of defining and redefining those rules and growing individually and together

To summarize it; all relationships have rules and intimacy requires commitment. Poly isn't good for either.

Look, if you just want a friend with benefits, that's ok. You don't need to try and justify it with the poly stuff. That's all you have and can ever have. Nothing meaningful. Nothing legitimate.


You also avoided the discussion about children.

no, relationships are based on consent. not rules.

not sure how you come to the conclusion that poly can't have commitment either.

i like that i tried to be polite about judging your relationship but you get to decree that mine is not meaningful or legitimate. yikes. i really don't want to unpack that shit show of a statement. i really would prefer to not judge you or your relationship harshly, but yikes. making it pretty tough to do. *to the larger group* and you wonder why poly people don't step forward to be studied scientifically ....

i also explicitly talked about children for at least 4 posts.

[ironyusa]

no, relationships are based on consent. not rules.

not sure how you come to the conclusion that poly can't have commitment either.

i like that i tried to be polite about judging your relationship but you get to decree that mine is not meaningful or legitimate. yikes. i really don't want to unpack that shit show of a statement.

i also explicitly talked about children for at least 4 posts.

Consent to what!?! Stop playing dumb. Consent to behaviors/ boundaries = rules.

I don't care what you say about my relationship. I'm committed as long as she is and we both understand that we need room to grow and develop individually for the sake of the relationship. Our intimacy is rooted in communication. And yeah, I don't think your "relationship" can even be called a relationship until you concede that there is some framework... aka rules. Relationship anarchy is meaningless (by design).

You talked in circles for 4 post and haven't offered any proof that poly can yield a healthy environment for child rearing. You also conflated terms.

[Unfated33]

I'm going to mostly lean away from Irony because I'd agree that we've had quite the discussion on children in previous pages. However, I still argue that rules exist. Or at least boundaries do, or whatever you want to call it. I mean, what do you call the terms that you agree to and consent upon with your partner. What are those called to you? I just call them rules, and if it's easier in your shorthand, just insert whatever you call agreement in your vernacular for what I call a rule. Because I totally get that rules can be RULES, such that "You can't look at other men" or "If you talk to friends of the opposite sex that is cheating", but for me the idea that we would communicate openly and negotiate issues are rules.

I think Irony touched on that the word seems triggering. I'm just going to add that you seemed to have a very visceral response in the context of what you were saying about the idea of rules. So my apologies that my use of the word here is somehow creating internal conflict.

[cockerpunk]

I'm going to mostly lean away from Irony because I'd agree that we've had quite the discussion on children in previous pages. However, I still argue that rules exist. Or at least boundaries do, or whatever you want to call it. I mean, what do you call the terms that you agree to and consent upon with your partner. What are those called to you? I just call them rules, and if it's easier in your shorthand, just insert whatever you call agreement in your vernacular for what I call a rule. Because I totally get that rules can be RULES, such that "You can't look at other men" or "If you talk to friends of the opposite sex that is cheating", but for me the idea that we would communicate openly and negotiate issues are rules.

I think Irony touched on that the word seems triggering. I'm just going to add that you seemed to have a very visceral response in the context of what you were saying about the idea of rules. So my apologies that my use of the word here is somehow creating internal conflict.

if you want to say rules = consent, then your redefining words to make it more convenient. i love my partner. if something i do hurts her, i don't do it, because i don't want to hurt someone i love. she doesn't consent to being hurt by me. she should never consent to that. being in a relationship is not about making it harder to leave, being in a relationship is about making someone want to stay. if you want to call that "rules" then whatever, its not, its just the power of consent, but whatever. rules are a list of things you agree to do or not do. that isn't building intimacy either, its actually contrary to intimacy. it takes away the intimacy, because its a threat. commitment under duress is not commitment. commitment from consent is real commitment. intimacy from consent is real intimacy. rules are contrary to both.

boundaries are different than rules, not at all similar. boundaries also come from consent. boundaries are lines we draw within ourselves about what we consent to and what we don't consent to. boundaries are not something we can impose on others, attempting to do that, makes it a rule.

ergo, all relationships are based on consent.


so the false dichotomy of rules versus no rules is laid bare. the false dichotomy of freedom versus commitment is laid bare.

[cockerpunk]

as a practical example:

i was in a relationship with an older woman, who unlike us classic texting millennials ... like to talk on the phone. i know. the horror.

so, she wanted to talk on the phone with me, it made her feel more connected/happier etc.

i obviously dont like talking on the phone. but i also liked this woman a lot, i loved her. so i tried. i agreed after one fight about it, to call her once a week. it was a rule. and for a while that worked fine, but also after a while i started feeling shittier and shittier about it. it wasn't that i didn't want to talk to her, or want to leave her, but doing this made me feel like shit. and it was because we didn't talk about the real reasons for these things. we were trying to band-aid a feeling, with an action. and i felt increasingly shitty about this, because it was a threat. i had to do this, or else we'd have a fight and she'd potentially leave. and that fucking sucked. it wasn't BTW the reason we broke up.

what we should have done, is try to figure out what feeling she wanted from the phone call, what was the source of that need. and then go looking for something that i liked to do for her, that we could change in order to provide that feeling to her. if she just wanted a phone call, and making me do that made her feel good (in control of me), thats abuse and gas-lighting. in retrospect, thats probably why it happened that way.

the point is, instead of a plan based on consent, we made a rule.

and thats a threat.

and you don't threaten people to gain commitment, intimacy, or whatever. those things can only come from consent.

[Unfated33]

I'm still at a loss from two posts what you call the resolution of consent. You have an issue, you negotiate it, this becomes *something*. What do you call that? Consent is the verb, the act. What is the noun that you consent to?

[cockerpunk]

I'm still at a loss from two posts what you call the resolution of consent. You have an issue, you negotiate it, this becomes *something*. What do you call that? Consent is the verb, the act. What is the noun that you consent to?

what is unclear about my example?

making a rule, negotiating a rule, talking about it, didn't work, it felt like shit. it felt like shit exactly because it was a rule. because it was raising the stakes to leave.

because it wasn't based on the underlying emotions and why we all felt the way we do. thats the heart of consent. consent is opting in, rules are making it more costly to opt out.

[Unfated33]

What was unclear is I don't understand what you call what you're consenting to? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm not trying to trick you into saying "Rules". I just don't get it. Consent is a verb - totally get that part. You consent.

But on many levels I don't see how what you're describing has to be different from what monogamous relationships can do. Many certainly shorthand to different rules or normative behaviors, but... I don't get where consent requires polyamory in the way you're defining it. And I really, really don't understand what you consent to, and I'm just trying to figure out what you call that.

[cockerpunk]

What was unclear is I don't understand what you call what you're consenting to? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm not trying to trick you into saying "Rules". I just don't get it. Consent is a verb - totally get that part. You consent.

But on many levels I don't see how what you're describing has to be different from what monogamous relationships can do. Many certainly shorthand to different rules or normative behaviors, but... I don't get where consent requires polyamory in the way you're defining it. And I really, really don't understand what you consent to, and I'm just trying to figure out what you call that.

what im describing isn't any different than what a monogamous relationship can do/be. i didn't claim that consent requires polyamory.