Rules Of The Game
First: yes, my freak remains in the box with the big DO NOT OPEN 'TILL HEAT DEATH OF UNIVERSE label on it. However, apparently I have a smaller, travel-size freak.
Then: some new house rules. My vast legions of longtime readers along with some newer ones may have noticed a new convention over the past couple of weeks, where I refer to people by first or last initials. This is because I am now interacting with many more real live humans than has been the case in the past, and it's interesting to me to write about these interactions. However, given what some might describe as the weirdward swing the site has taken over the past couple of months, I do not assume that anyone wants to be fully named unless they've told me otherwise.* Yes, some of the people can probably be identified by other people who already know them, and I'm actually fairly certain that nobody I've met would really mind being named. But it's the courteous thing to do. That said, sometimes the initials will be real, and sometimes they won't, and I'm not telling when I do and don't make that switch. So guess away, if you need to.
And now: other matters.
Consider the following scenario. Person A self-identifies as polyamorous, and has had a long term, long distance, sexual relationship with Person B (among many others). Person B has a primary partner who lives close by, called Person C. Person A knows about Person B and Person C. But Person B hasn't ever told Person C about Person A, and Person A is aware of this.
Now consider another situation. Person D and Person Q have been partners for about a decade, and also identify as poly. They have one rule: no unsupervised play, and either partner has veto power. That means that either one of them can fool around with Person X with the other partner's permission, but that partner has to be in the room or close by. Not necessarily participating, mind you. Just there.
Question: which situation would be more appealing to participate in? ("Neither. You're a loony with issues." Yeah, fine, whatever. Stay with me, here.)
For me, there is a serious ethical problem with the first situation. While everyone is, in the end, responsible for their own conduct, Person B is cheating on Person C with the full knowledge of Person A. First: why would anyone want to be involved with someone who's capable of being so dishonest, for so long? Second: what kind of person abets and tacitly approves of such deception? Certainly not the kind of person I'd want to be involved with. This is why I favor the clunkier but, to me, more accurate term "ethical nonmonogamy" over "polyamory." This situation has unethical conduct smeared all over it, not to mention boatloads of drama. Persons A and B may be polyamorous in name, but it seems to me that they're missing the point: loving behavior does not involve even the slightest deception of anyone involved in a given situation. Period.
I find the second situation to be the clear winner in terms of honesty and integrity. Permission is asked. Boundaries are maintained in person, in real time. It's simpler and, provided all participants are sufficiently self-aware, it's about as honest as you can get.
Neither situation is a hypothetical; I encountered each over the course of the weekend. There was no offer to participate in the first situation, which is just as well, because the situation and the person describing it were unappealing for the reasons stated above, among others. There was an offer to participate in the second, which I accepted. Persons D and Q happen to be men, and Q. and I played a bit while D. bustled about and did some ironing.
Now, now. I said I brought my travel-size freak. Besides, it was four AM and I was bloody tired. I'm sure that whatever you can imagine (if you're so inclined) is far more exotic than what actually happened and no, I'm not going into details, which is probably a great relief to most if not all of you.
The point is simply this: I knew just from my readings that there are a lot of people out there engaging in what they're calling polyamorous behavior who, for one reason are another, end up doing serious emotional and mental harm to themselves and to others because they're lacking in self-knowledge, integrity, or honesty. As told to me, the fallout from the first situation I described was dire and nearly deadly. It's one thing to encounter that in the realm of pixels and theory, and quite another to sit across the table from it.
That said, being on the couch with the second situation was rather nice, if a little strange in the way that new experiences can be. I woke up (alone in my own bed, thank you) with no regrets and a sort of goofy manic grin.
Now then...I must watch more Buffy, until my eyes get heavy. So very nice to be home again...
*Unless they're public or semi-public figures.
