What if relationship can thrive because of the preposterous deluge?
Whatever "ugly and bad and tangled up" comes in me is a natural consequence of me being a human with series of my conditionings. I don't have to identify with it, nor my partner, but maybe together we can giggle at it, study human mind from anthropological POV, and create synergy our of those unstructured externalizations of our beings?
There's a conversational technology that exists in our marriage for this purpose: "I don't endorse this, but I am thinking/feeling x."
However, I also don't think unmitigated closeness at all costs is the point! I thoroughly agree with the Bruce Tift take that all relationships are a balance of separateness and togetherness, or, put another way, dependent/independent energy...
To be honest, I was a bit distracted during the read of this excellent piece by the emotions brought up by the piece opening with a conflation of monogamy and commitment.
All of these paragraphs also strongly apply to my nesting partner and I, and we're polyamorous, each with us having at least 1 additional lover. I know many other nesting partners that this all also applies to, and I feel hesitant to forward this piece to them because of that conflation.
I understand you're in San Francisco, where polyamory is very trendy, and so there are plenty of unhealthy examples. You've also probably had to defend your relationship structure choice, as much as I've had to defend mine in my community. But, I assure you, we make costly expensive commitments, with no exit plans. It is just as inconceivable for me to leave my partner, as it is for you to leave yours.
I think the only difference is that there's less pressure for you to be absolutely compatible in your sex life. So the "sex life" section is the only part that doesn't align as strongly with us, but otherwise, she's my person and I'm hers.
I'm wondering, why did that conflation even...have to be made? Is the piece stronger for having it? I'm sorry to leave such a long defensive comment, on such a lovely and thoughtful piece.
Valid question! Here's why that linkage is made here.
I think it's totally possible for the sexually non-exclusive to be committed in the same way that monogamous people are, to the extent that you will confront your deepest vulnerabilities rather than running away. In the same way that it's entirely possible for people to be exposed to the ravages of a North American diet and be metabolically healthy. You have to possess an unusual makeup to avoid the hazards. Exclusivity isn't needed for commitment in a strict sense, but it sure helps. And people like me need all the help we can get to grow up.
I wasn't raised with the expectation of monogamy, and was resistant to it for a long time. But life experience showed me it's the best option for me, and I strongly believe that's true of most people.
It's hard, because I think inside of social bubbles anchored by successful poly relationships, what you see is this: lots of people with thriving relationships and lots of sex in this style society tells you is impossible, and when society stops to notice it is often in the form of bullying and misunderstanding.
Outside the bubble, though, what I see repeatedly is this: swathes of people (clumps of individuals or whole social groups) trying out poly, reading all the books, being really intentional about it, and then having their lives smashed in by the resulting chaos and cursing poly's name for the rest of their lives, with a few people remaining behind as successful poly people. Sometimes this ruins whole cliques and movements; there are promising non-profits I'm aware of that have been successfully exploded by poly drama.
I'm extremely happy that you've found a loving relationship that works for you, and I'm sorry if you meet with stigma. I have poly friends I really like and I feel the same about them. However, given everything I've experienced, if a random person approached me and said "should I open up my relationship," and I knew absolutely nothing else about them and had to give a binary answer, I'd say "oh god no." I think these things can all coexist.
Thanks for explaining your perspective! Your bubble is indeed very, very different from mine. That's not what it looks like in Vancouver, Canada.
> ; there are promising non-profits I'm aware of that have been successfully exploded by poly drama.
I'm curious do you ever use the framing or phrasing "monogamous drama" to describe situations where folks relationships dramatically ended due to affairs or sexual under-satisfaction?
Maybe I should! But I think this falls under the category of "the default goes unnamed." Most marriages are assumed monogamous, so "monogamous drama" to describe a divorce is a bunch of extra syllables.
Also, poly drama can have a multiplicative character that all but the most wild monog drama doesn't, which merits its naming as a distinct phenomenon, IMO. There were/are high-poly social subcultures (that I won't name) where like 33% of the membership get directly or indirectly romantically entangled with a single figure. That is a lot of dominoes...
This is wonderful, having been with my husband nearly 25 years I agree with everything you’ve stated. There really is something to be said for “blocking the exits.” And thank goodness I had my journaling habit to keep me from sharing every opinion the minute it crossed my mind.
I read this aloud to my wife last night after coming across it earlier in the day. The conversation about our relationship that followed has, while just one small piece of our on-going co-evolution, forever improved our marriage. Thank you Sasha!
So, I have the urge to contest your frame a little bit — I am this mature because of a challenging-but-helpful first marriage, and then a more aligned second marriage. This is the thing that makes you mature! Going around your single life looking for people who are as relationally skilled as those shaped by a good marriage is a recipe for more singleness, I would think. :)
However, what you can look for, I think, is people with a commitment to growth and an honesty about where they're at. If you showed this article to someone and they said, "yup I can nail all of that no problem," I would feel suspicious. If they were keen to identify what would be hard about this kind of marriage for them, what is scary about it, and how they might think about working through those fears, that seems like a better sign.
Hell yes. I think of my time as a relationship anarchist as Rumspringa. Now I'm a born-again monogamist and could've summarized parts of my project, Happy Endings, into this post. I'm totally with you two ❤️❤️❤️ Love this post and glad to have found you from it.
In replying to Kat, you said, "You have to possess an unusual makeup to avoid the hazards. Exclusivity isn't needed for commitment in a strict sense, but it sure helps. And people like me need all the help we can get to grow up."
This is the part that's interesting to me. I think you have to have an unusual makeup to avoid the hazards of monogamy: namely, all the things you listed as your "earlier protocol" that you're glad you left behind (which IMO characterize the default monogamous cultural paradigm). Some people can be monogamous, realize those patterns are limiting, and leave them behind — as you did — but polyamory can be a forcing function, because if you think the point of relationships is to conceal your insecurity, you're going to have a Really Bad Time with poly.
I also think this is why you see all the "poly drama". Because whether mono or poly, most people don't grow up without a lot of (hopefully metaphorical) kicking and screaming. In a monogamous relationship you can hide for years while you avoid growing up, or you can eventually cheat and get divorced and it's all just kind of accepted. In a polyam relationship, if you avoid growing up, drama ensues and (as you point out) the blast radius is often larger.
I do agree with you that monogamy is probably a better choice for most folks. I'm just doubtful that monogamy is necessarily more likely to lead to "growing up"; I think it's more likely that you were willing and able to grow up and that was reflected in changes in your approach to monogamy.
My main feeling here, in terms of differentiating factors, apart from the drama differential, is that polyamory or any other open configuration offers chances for satisfaction that are also chances for escape. There is something beautiful about how a great mono relationship tends to reliably satisfy about 70% of your intimate needs — and then you need to figure out how to handle not getting the 30%, which typically requires confronting existential insecurities. If you can fill that gap up with more intimacy, that creates an offramp that is soothing but not helpful from a maturation perspective. (Note that this applies equally, and probably moreso in fact, to serial daters in the mono paradigm, or people "playing the field.")
I love this, and most of these points are eloquently said and expanded upon in Dean Spade's new book Love in a F*cked-Up World: How to Build Relationships, Hook Up, and Raise Hell Together, and all of this maps onto nonmonogamous and nonromantic relationships also!
As a single person open to partnership, this resonates so much: “Both partners try to give 100%, accept that there are imbalances, keep scorekeeping to a minimum”
This is great! You have laid out something important and valuable for me that I never knew the words for. Thank You for that! And there’s this, which is the truth, slays, and provides a quick marital Rorschach test: Relationships don’t deepen unless you give people the power to hurt you terribly. Wow and Yep!
Wtf Sasha how do you write this you are exactly correct and communicate it like a young but scarily competent English butler!
:)
that is nice, I am trying to write in the style of "just say exactly what you mean" more lately
Well It's working man shit
And you've inspired me to finish my first stack (on how gain of function research was the modern day Tower of Babel)
Flipping up one of your sentences:
What if relationship can thrive because of the preposterous deluge?
Whatever "ugly and bad and tangled up" comes in me is a natural consequence of me being a human with series of my conditionings. I don't have to identify with it, nor my partner, but maybe together we can giggle at it, study human mind from anthropological POV, and create synergy our of those unstructured externalizations of our beings?
Also. Absolutely gem-y writing Sasha, thank you for articulating these pieces of wisdom 🌲
There's a conversational technology that exists in our marriage for this purpose: "I don't endorse this, but I am thinking/feeling x."
However, I also don't think unmitigated closeness at all costs is the point! I thoroughly agree with the Bruce Tift take that all relationships are a balance of separateness and togetherness, or, put another way, dependent/independent energy...
i want you to have kids just for the lucid blog posts on parenting
To be honest, I was a bit distracted during the read of this excellent piece by the emotions brought up by the piece opening with a conflation of monogamy and commitment.
All of these paragraphs also strongly apply to my nesting partner and I, and we're polyamorous, each with us having at least 1 additional lover. I know many other nesting partners that this all also applies to, and I feel hesitant to forward this piece to them because of that conflation.
I understand you're in San Francisco, where polyamory is very trendy, and so there are plenty of unhealthy examples. You've also probably had to defend your relationship structure choice, as much as I've had to defend mine in my community. But, I assure you, we make costly expensive commitments, with no exit plans. It is just as inconceivable for me to leave my partner, as it is for you to leave yours.
I think the only difference is that there's less pressure for you to be absolutely compatible in your sex life. So the "sex life" section is the only part that doesn't align as strongly with us, but otherwise, she's my person and I'm hers.
I'm wondering, why did that conflation even...have to be made? Is the piece stronger for having it? I'm sorry to leave such a long defensive comment, on such a lovely and thoughtful piece.
Valid question! Here's why that linkage is made here.
I think it's totally possible for the sexually non-exclusive to be committed in the same way that monogamous people are, to the extent that you will confront your deepest vulnerabilities rather than running away. In the same way that it's entirely possible for people to be exposed to the ravages of a North American diet and be metabolically healthy. You have to possess an unusual makeup to avoid the hazards. Exclusivity isn't needed for commitment in a strict sense, but it sure helps. And people like me need all the help we can get to grow up.
I wasn't raised with the expectation of monogamy, and was resistant to it for a long time. But life experience showed me it's the best option for me, and I strongly believe that's true of most people.
It's hard, because I think inside of social bubbles anchored by successful poly relationships, what you see is this: lots of people with thriving relationships and lots of sex in this style society tells you is impossible, and when society stops to notice it is often in the form of bullying and misunderstanding.
Outside the bubble, though, what I see repeatedly is this: swathes of people (clumps of individuals or whole social groups) trying out poly, reading all the books, being really intentional about it, and then having their lives smashed in by the resulting chaos and cursing poly's name for the rest of their lives, with a few people remaining behind as successful poly people. Sometimes this ruins whole cliques and movements; there are promising non-profits I'm aware of that have been successfully exploded by poly drama.
I'm extremely happy that you've found a loving relationship that works for you, and I'm sorry if you meet with stigma. I have poly friends I really like and I feel the same about them. However, given everything I've experienced, if a random person approached me and said "should I open up my relationship," and I knew absolutely nothing else about them and had to give a binary answer, I'd say "oh god no." I think these things can all coexist.
Thanks for explaining your perspective! Your bubble is indeed very, very different from mine. That's not what it looks like in Vancouver, Canada.
> ; there are promising non-profits I'm aware of that have been successfully exploded by poly drama.
I'm curious do you ever use the framing or phrasing "monogamous drama" to describe situations where folks relationships dramatically ended due to affairs or sexual under-satisfaction?
Maybe I should! But I think this falls under the category of "the default goes unnamed." Most marriages are assumed monogamous, so "monogamous drama" to describe a divorce is a bunch of extra syllables.
Also, poly drama can have a multiplicative character that all but the most wild monog drama doesn't, which merits its naming as a distinct phenomenon, IMO. There were/are high-poly social subcultures (that I won't name) where like 33% of the membership get directly or indirectly romantically entangled with a single figure. That is a lot of dominoes...
If you're curious for a cri de coeur from someone who joined and then expelled herself from the poly bubble that surrounds the Bay, this reflects the feeling of a number of women I know: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1kfftos/why_i_think_polyamory_is_net_negative_for_most/
Also, if you feel like telling me how it's different in Vancouver, I'd be happy to hear it. Thanks for engaging charitably.
This is wonderful, having been with my husband nearly 25 years I agree with everything you’ve stated. There really is something to be said for “blocking the exits.” And thank goodness I had my journaling habit to keep me from sharing every opinion the minute it crossed my mind.
PSA: The latest edition of Difficult Conversations is $1.99 on Kindle today (Prime Day deal). https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-Matters-dp-014313759X/dp/014313759X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
Excellent post. I especially appreciate the reminder that "conflict is a non-problem."
only thing I'm thinking reading this is, wen kids? ;)
highly recommend!
I read this aloud to my wife last night after coming across it earlier in the day. The conversation about our relationship that followed has, while just one small piece of our on-going co-evolution, forever improved our marriage. Thank you Sasha!
This is exquisitely nice to hear
A banger from the first point.
Any ideas how we can screen men who are at this level of maturity? Asking for a friend
So, I have the urge to contest your frame a little bit — I am this mature because of a challenging-but-helpful first marriage, and then a more aligned second marriage. This is the thing that makes you mature! Going around your single life looking for people who are as relationally skilled as those shaped by a good marriage is a recipe for more singleness, I would think. :)
However, what you can look for, I think, is people with a commitment to growth and an honesty about where they're at. If you showed this article to someone and they said, "yup I can nail all of that no problem," I would feel suspicious. If they were keen to identify what would be hard about this kind of marriage for them, what is scary about it, and how they might think about working through those fears, that seems like a better sign.
Hell yes. I think of my time as a relationship anarchist as Rumspringa. Now I'm a born-again monogamist and could've summarized parts of my project, Happy Endings, into this post. I'm totally with you two ❤️❤️❤️ Love this post and glad to have found you from it.
I love getting to peek inside a power couple's relationship. This is so so good
In replying to Kat, you said, "You have to possess an unusual makeup to avoid the hazards. Exclusivity isn't needed for commitment in a strict sense, but it sure helps. And people like me need all the help we can get to grow up."
This is the part that's interesting to me. I think you have to have an unusual makeup to avoid the hazards of monogamy: namely, all the things you listed as your "earlier protocol" that you're glad you left behind (which IMO characterize the default monogamous cultural paradigm). Some people can be monogamous, realize those patterns are limiting, and leave them behind — as you did — but polyamory can be a forcing function, because if you think the point of relationships is to conceal your insecurity, you're going to have a Really Bad Time with poly.
I also think this is why you see all the "poly drama". Because whether mono or poly, most people don't grow up without a lot of (hopefully metaphorical) kicking and screaming. In a monogamous relationship you can hide for years while you avoid growing up, or you can eventually cheat and get divorced and it's all just kind of accepted. In a polyam relationship, if you avoid growing up, drama ensues and (as you point out) the blast radius is often larger.
I do agree with you that monogamy is probably a better choice for most folks. I'm just doubtful that monogamy is necessarily more likely to lead to "growing up"; I think it's more likely that you were willing and able to grow up and that was reflected in changes in your approach to monogamy.
I think these are well-argued points!
My main feeling here, in terms of differentiating factors, apart from the drama differential, is that polyamory or any other open configuration offers chances for satisfaction that are also chances for escape. There is something beautiful about how a great mono relationship tends to reliably satisfy about 70% of your intimate needs — and then you need to figure out how to handle not getting the 30%, which typically requires confronting existential insecurities. If you can fill that gap up with more intimacy, that creates an offramp that is soothing but not helpful from a maturation perspective. (Note that this applies equally, and probably moreso in fact, to serial daters in the mono paradigm, or people "playing the field.")
I love this, and most of these points are eloquently said and expanded upon in Dean Spade's new book Love in a F*cked-Up World: How to Build Relationships, Hook Up, and Raise Hell Together, and all of this maps onto nonmonogamous and nonromantic relationships also!
As a single person open to partnership, this resonates so much: “Both partners try to give 100%, accept that there are imbalances, keep scorekeeping to a minimum”
Thank you Sasha for writing this piece 🙏
Thank you for sharing. Indeed I think is a think of maturity.
This is great! You have laid out something important and valuable for me that I never knew the words for. Thank You for that! And there’s this, which is the truth, slays, and provides a quick marital Rorschach test: Relationships don’t deepen unless you give people the power to hurt you terribly. Wow and Yep!