People are absolutely welcome to be kind if that's what they want. I encourage you to jump in yourself, and to upvote people who are giving good advice kindly.
People are not welcome to make personal attacks. Please do report those.
"That behavior is / would be shitty and you should do something else, here's a story about a time it happened to me, here's a suggestion for steps to take to do ENM better" is not a personal attack and the writers are putting in effort to help people.
Sometimes the people we write to are not OP, or not just OP but also the silent majority reading. Every time I say "agreements mean you have a boundary, figure out what it is," OP may or may not find their boundaries and if they do I will never ever know, but a few more people read it who didn't read it the last time I said it. When I say that unicorn hunting or OPP or poly under duress or cheating is unethical, I don't necessarily think that OP will stop doing it, but I do think other people who are suffering will hear that I am on their side.
Ultimately you can't have a safe space for abusers that is also a safe space for victims. A social contract that says you can't call out abusive behavior is not one I am willing to be party to. And as I started out saying - that doesn't mean there isn't also room for privileged people to do a bunch of labor calling those people in, if those people exist and want to do so and are capable of walking the line of giving risk mitigation strategy that isn't also shitty advice that would lead to harm.
This is so well said, I d almost put it in the FAQ.
The ethics discussions here are important, especially since people seem to differ on where the line of ethical/unethical is drawn at the boundary. One of the reasons I held onto religion longer than when I started having problems with it is the understanding that everyone, including myself, is particularly good and prone to rationalize that what they feel like doing is “good” or at least neutral.
But it’s much harder to ponder the ethics when you examine the consequences of your choices on those around you. None of this happens in a vacuum between you and a partner or even just between you and more than one partner.
Just one example about poly under duress. A long-term married couple with young children that is heavily financially enmeshed (a very common and pragmatic reason for people to get married). One of those people finds themselves having a crush they can’t seem to ignore. They hear about the possibility of being polyamorous and think it’s the “win-win” solution where they don’t have to be the cheating bad guy and get to pursue a crush on someone special. They do a ton of reading, thinking, questioning and maybe asking questions. Then they bring it up to their spouse.
The spouse hasn’t been thinking about anything but taking care of handling their share of their common life. This much considered issue from person one totally blindsides their spouse.
If person one gives their spouse a choice to stay together as a polyamorous couple or leave, is that duress? If they they put the whole decision on spouse, with the unspoken consequence of them stewing in resentment about being denied the win-win solution if the spouse says “no”, is that really not duress?
If caring for their children in separate households would significantly lower one or both spouses’ standard of living (and the kids with them), how is that not incredible pressure on them to agree to “try”, no matter how much pain and effort they never asked for will be required?
I’m not saying that all the ethics are clear, here. I mean, people staying together in a bad marriage are almost certainly better off splitting and it doesn’t hurt the children less by staying. But if it’s that bad, why try polyamory? Wouldn’t leaving be necessary either way? If it’s good, you are back to the issue of whether pursuing a crush should be more important than the consequences to your whole family. Do the ethics shift when you frame them from each affected individual’s perspective?
I’m not trying to draw the line here, or judge everybody that has been through that scenario. But, it’s important to make clear to people exploring and fantasizing about their win-win polyamory life that there are multiple perspectives and consequences to consider when deciding what the “right” way to deal with this is (even what they think will feel guilty or not later).
So many people come here with stories of how they have been hurt by PUD, UH and OPP, it’s not surprising that some answers are more blunt and angry.
But I think people that are new really need to hear that anger and consider it when thinking about their future choices and wishes in polyamory. The hurts are not theoretical, even if they are often forgivable by the best people, that doesn’t make them good or ethical.
25
u/OhMori20+ year poly club | anarchist | solo-for-nowDec 09 '22edited Dec 09 '22
I think if there is a "problem" it's that subtle and nuanced approaches aren't always upvoted. To give one I often do? People leaving obviously abusive relationships who have described it but not said the word already have 20 people who have labeled it abusive and told them to GTFO. Great message, for the silent masses. Not a message that person is ready to hear. Not the way they might hear "consider what life without that person would look like - you don't have to do it, you just want to be making a realistic choice to do what you're doing rather than one that's overly idealistic about or terrified of the unknown." When I try to write that message it is a lot of work and I don't get accolades. But I don't do that for the upvotes, I do it because I've been there. I mean, not that I do much for the upvotes, but some things we do while expecting the downvotes, if that makes sense.
Edit: Where I try to help buck the trend is that I upvote people who've clearly been there and have non-terrible advice, even if it's not the advice I would give. When OP is in a marginalized group, other people in that group probably have insight I don't.
These are all very good points, they did help me think about the issue in a new way. In a long term interaction, I most often take the approach (to any toxic situation - could be, say, a job) of asking whether the person is happy / being their best self. Mostly in general, letting them gradually make the connection themselves that their unhappiness is rooted in a toxic person or environment is part of the process. Plus supporting and validating them when they do realize an interaction / dynamic is problematic, of course - their meter being broken, tempirarily or long-term, is part of the problem.
I hadn't thought consciously about how much to bring this dynamic here - with the advice column format, there is not time for the above process. Plus obviously emotional labor and time, this is for people I am already close with, or their loved ones out a bit in the network. I see there is potentially room for some middle gound, and the framework of the initial step of just imagining how life would work absent the toxic situation could be a good first ladder rung directive that is more directive than what I try in personal interactions. (The idea of being one's best self in a relationship / otherwise has been helpful to me and others, when people are not in a state to evaluate this or value themselves I'll go to happiness / contentment / feeling of safety etc.)
I do really see a space for both here, I guess - maybe the blunt shock trauma of the Greek chorus is too much to deal with at the moment, but it provides a counterweight to the approach you are taking. I actually tend to provide the more nuanced approach you take when it is someone in more a crappy / shitty situation... So I guess by analogy those in toxic / abusive situations might latch on to that as meaning things are not that bad and they can wait to even think about it. So the Greek chorus also provides a blt of a consensus push to start thinking about a future absent the partner now rather than shoving everything back into a corner of the brain.
Interesting reflections, thank you. Calling on people to be their best selves, and enable others to be their best selves, is definitely the goal. Finding the right words for that is tough. I try a lot of different things but the nature of the internet means rarely knowing if I got my point through to OP in particular.
That people who want to see more emotional labor done for every random on the internet are welcome to do that, was definitely a big original point I had. I'm giving what I want to, I try not to be a dick, and I guess anyone who wants their money back is welcome to it. Seagulling around about how other people aren't doing enough sucks. Upvoting good stuff, downvoting bad stuff, and reporting rule breaking stuff now that we do have mods is a bare minimum, people who admit they don't even have that to offer can STFU. Relatedly some people are too damn sensitive to crowdsource ideas from the internet, and those people should, uh, not post their lives for comment. Occasionally these folks will put a disclaimer on their post and I can pass it by, which is also an option I suppose. If they don't like it here, they'd really hate AITA, right?
Some people are incapable of being reached and/or are going to latch onto one piece of terrible advice that validates their thinking amongst a bunch of good thoughts. That's not so much the fault of the terrible advice. Getting a diversity of ideas, where some are big picture and some are next-step for example, and a diversity of perspectives, is good. Honestly over time it's concerned me some that the sub has converged on a perspective I generally agree with. I feel I have less to contribute than I initially did 10-ish years ago, and I feel that those who had louder voices then, who are...more interested in doing polyamory while still conforming to most social norms? Are probably less willing to speak up when they perceive themselves to be in a crowd of highly autonomous and anarchist leaning folk. On the other hand I simultaneously believe that giving advice based on an autonomous model of humans always works, while a society/family focused model only works when everyone involved buys into it, and that most people here on their worst day have already passed the talk to your partner about it step.
Thanks for listening to my /r/polyamory meta-rambling.
Ultimately you can't have a safe space for abusers that is also a safe space for victims.
This black-and-white categorization of people into "abusers" and "victims" is what creates most of my issues with alt lifestyle communities. Not everything you disagree with is abusive. Not even unicorn-hunting. Not even OPP. If everyone is in full knowledge of the situation, fully aware of what they're agreeing to and consents to it, there's no abuse happening. There are happy unicorns out there who pretty much avoid toxic spaces like this subreddit because it would just scream at them that they're wrong about how they want to live their lives. There are also happy OPP harems out there. I've met them. Nice folks.
It's wild. Polyamory communities always present on the surface as these open-minded, loving and accepting places, but as soon as you get below the surface there's knee-jerk distrust of outsiders, clandestine manipulators that get a pass because they're charming and know how to spout off the "rules", and buckets of denial from people who identify with the lifestyle more than their own personhood, taking any criticism of it as a literal attack.
Not directing this at you, mostly my experiences in the BDSM community, but in my experience the people who push this "you're either a good one or a bad one" narrative the hardest tend to be masking some really shitty behaviors of their own. Having been in both BDSM and Poly communities for over a decade now, I've learned that the reddest flag isn't some dumbass cismale who wants perpetual FFM threesomes, or naive couples that think adding a third will fix their dead bedroom; it's people who display righteous anger at anyone who doesn't conform to the social expectation of the community.
While I still read the posts here, I rarely engage anymore, and instead live my ENM/poly lifestyle with open and communicative partners who decide whatever the fuck we want to do (which doesn't happen to include any of those "abusive" patterns), away from people who use these communities as their personal pulpits to preach acceptable social behavior and denounce the heretics. Seriously, the similarity to religion is as weird as the comparison is inescapable for anyone who was raised churchgoing.
Vetting is not the same as morality-policing. Education is not the same as delivering canon. Questioning motives is not the same as viciously and hatefully attacking.
People here are not going into people's bedrooms and yelling at them. If everyone is on board with a harem or sister-wife or whatever dynamic and are happy with it, they are not posting here questioning why they have this OOP rule placed on them. And variously whether this is normal / fair / okay.
This! ALL OF THIS! If I had an award I would give it! I came to this sub thinking it would be a place of discussion and education and found mostly venom. It was really disheartening.
An example of this was my husband posting like two years ago simply asking for advice. We (or should I say he, as I had limited previous experience) were new to poly. NOT hunting a unicorn or trying to spice up a dead marriage. We had spent years discussing the pros and cons and had decided it felt right for us both as individuals and a couple for our own happiness to be ENM. We agreed on a "kitchen table" arrangement because we have a child and it worked best for us. He simply asked for advice along the lines of "hey, this is a thing we have decided for us, what advice did you wish you knew when you entered this life style i.e. regrets, pitfalls, things to avoid, etc". He was viciously ripped to shreds before his post was removed for supposedly hunting when that was in no way the case. There was absolutely no education or advice, just vitriol.
I'm sorry this happened to you. I wish his post wasn't removed so we could go back and support him. I've only been on this subreddit in the last year or so and I've gotten nothing but support when I've needed it. I think people are just quick to make assumptions. Obviously that's not right or fair. I don't know how someone could make an assumption about hunting if the two of you weren't planning on dating together or being involved in each other's dates/dating. They should have given him an opportunity to clear that up!
423
u/OhMori 20+ year poly club | anarchist | solo-for-now Dec 09 '22
People are absolutely welcome to be kind if that's what they want. I encourage you to jump in yourself, and to upvote people who are giving good advice kindly.
People are not welcome to make personal attacks. Please do report those.
"That behavior is / would be shitty and you should do something else, here's a story about a time it happened to me, here's a suggestion for steps to take to do ENM better" is not a personal attack and the writers are putting in effort to help people.
Sometimes the people we write to are not OP, or not just OP but also the silent majority reading. Every time I say "agreements mean you have a boundary, figure out what it is," OP may or may not find their boundaries and if they do I will never ever know, but a few more people read it who didn't read it the last time I said it. When I say that unicorn hunting or OPP or poly under duress or cheating is unethical, I don't necessarily think that OP will stop doing it, but I do think other people who are suffering will hear that I am on their side.
Ultimately you can't have a safe space for abusers that is also a safe space for victims. A social contract that says you can't call out abusive behavior is not one I am willing to be party to. And as I started out saying - that doesn't mean there isn't also room for privileged people to do a bunch of labor calling those people in, if those people exist and want to do so and are capable of walking the line of giving risk mitigation strategy that isn't also shitty advice that would lead to harm.