Priorities

Hm.

Back of the brain says: if you only prioritize spending time/money on folks you have a sexual connection with, I guess that means that sex is the central element which maintains our relationship, even if you say otherwise or we feel otherwise at the moment.

Priorities

Hm.

Back of the brain says: if you only prioritize spending time/money on folks you have a sexual connection with, I guess that means that sex is the central element which maintains our relationship, even if you say otherwise or we feel otherwise at the moment.

Wife-In-Law

So. Metamours.

It seems like in-laws are emerging as a frame for thinking about metamours in some poly circles: they're important to your partner and have a lot of influence on emotional state etc, you can't change that they exist, there will often be some sort of overlap with them of which they have certain expectations. In the poly world these expectations can be loosely grouped into parallel and kitchen table poly.

There are differences, of course, maybe the biggest in my experience being that the relationship is frequently more coercive: there's more a sense that if you don't please your metamour then your shared partner will opt out of the relationship, so you'd better get it right. Folks have had a lot more time to get used to disagreeing on behaviour with their families than their partners, old or new. It takes a lot to lose family over a disagreement. It takes less to lose a relationship, especially a new relationship, or especially a relationship where there's NRE towards a different person.

I've been in some bad metamour relationships, at least one which was extremely unhealthy to abusive in hindsight. I also -- public internet journalling aside -- am very private with people I don't chose to be intimate with. Maybe it's more accurate to say I like to control my intimacy with folks, and I like to escalate it no faster than my chosen speed. I like to feel out mutuality on a bunch of fronts: handling parts of someone you can't understand, forms of emotional support, listening/talking rhythm, ability to feel and express nuance and ambivalence, humility, position on being a unique individual against a backdrop of social norms, degree of self-loathing or self-love, acceptance of self, approach to give-and-take and consent for verbal intimacy.

What does this mean? Well, in essence it means that I don't consent to my metamours having access to my private self just because they're metamours.

And I like the in-law model because it helps me explain what I want: happy to attend holidays unless someone is a repeated bad actor. Happy to be polite and make small-talk when in the same place. Not happy to fb-friend or talk about my private bits unless a separate personal relationship develops.

But... it /is/ more fraught because of the coercive element. And I've been trying to avoid fraught relationships, and to disentangle the freighting where possible. That's why solo poly appeals to me. It's harder for all parties to come together openly and honestly and with consent when they feel like their relationship is riding on it. I don't have more space for folks who can't be clear about what they want, for whatever reason. That energy is already assigned.

That said, the in-law model contains another instructive piece. Generally one doesn't meet potential in-laws before the first date. Generally one doesn't check in with in-laws before or after the first time one has sex. They're in-laws because they enter the picture with the legal institution of marriage, or in practice with closely enmeshed longer term relationships. There's even a cultural trope around it being "time to meet the parents" when a relationship gets serious.

Generally speaking I have trouble with the differentiation of "serious" and "casual" relationships. I often care very deeply about my people even when I don't live with them, see them often, or practice sex or sexual exclusivity with them. My priorities likewise don't fit into a neatly tiered "person A comes before person B who comes before person C". But maybe, with some thought on the definition of serious, I can be guided by this cultural boundary.

Hmm.

Wife-In-Law

So. Metamours.

It seems like in-laws are emerging as a frame for thinking about metamours in some poly circles: they're important to your partner and have a lot of influence on emotional state etc, you can't change that they exist, there will often be some sort of overlap with them of which they have certain expectations. In the poly world these expectations can be loosely grouped into parallel and kitchen table poly.

There are differences, of course, maybe the biggest in my experience being that the relationship is frequently more coercive: there's more a sense that if you don't please your metamour then your shared partner will opt out of the relationship, so you'd better get it right. Folks have had a lot more time to get used to disagreeing on behaviour with their families than their partners, old or new. It takes a lot to lose family over a disagreement. It takes less to lose a relationship, especially a new relationship, or especially a relationship where there's NRE towards a different person.

I've been in some bad metamour relationships, at least one which was extremely unhealthy to abusive in hindsight. I also -- public internet journalling aside -- am very private with people I don't chose to be intimate with. Maybe it's more accurate to say I like to control my intimacy with folks, and I like to escalate it no faster than my chosen speed. I like to feel out mutuality on a bunch of fronts: handling parts of someone you can't understand, forms of emotional support, listening/talking rhythm, ability to feel and express nuance and ambivalence, humility, position on being a unique individual against a backdrop of social norms, degree of self-loathing or self-love, acceptance of self, approach to give-and-take and consent for verbal intimacy.

What does this mean? Well, in essence it means that I don't consent to my metamours having access to my private self just because they're metamours.

And I like the in-law model because it helps me explain what I want: happy to attend holidays unless someone is a repeated bad actor. Happy to be polite and make small-talk when in the same place. Not happy to fb-friend or talk about my private bits unless a separate personal relationship develops.

But... it /is/ more fraught because of the coercive element. And I've been trying to avoid fraught relationships, and to disentangle the freighting where possible. That's why solo poly appeals to me. It's harder for all parties to come together openly and honestly and with consent when they feel like their relationship is riding on it. I don't have more space for folks who can't be clear about what they want, for whatever reason. That energy is already assigned.

That said, the in-law model contains another instructive piece. Generally one doesn't meet potential in-laws before the first date. Generally one doesn't check in with in-laws before or after the first time one has sex. They're in-laws because they enter the picture with the legal institution of marriage, or in practice with closely enmeshed longer term relationships. There's even a cultural trope around it being "time to meet the parents" when a relationship gets serious.

Generally speaking I have trouble with the differentiation of "serious" and "casual" relationships. I often care very deeply about my people even when I don't live with them, see them often, or practice sex or sexual exclusivity with them. My priorities likewise don't fit into a neatly tiered "person A comes before person B who comes before person C". But maybe, with some thought on the definition of serious, I can be guided by this cultural boundary.

Hmm.