Say what you mean

I've been poly for a really long time.

I've been actively poly (dating folks in a context where dating other folks was explicitly part of the deal) for 25 years. If you string my partners end-to-end rather than concurrent, that time period covers more than twice my life. I have had many, most, relationship beginnings and endings while in other relationships.

The concept of poly is even more wide-open than the concept of monogamy. It doesn't mean much on its own, without a bunch of additional information. The socially acceptable way of doing poly changes from year to year; the dogma and language and should-dos change from year to year. All are influenced by the way poly is marginalized, the way it's a departure from the state-and-society-sanctioned relationship structure. Pop poly is reactive to monogamous ideas, it wants to depart from monogamy here and retain structures and privilege there.

And you don't depart from that privilege by joining a community, by taking out your genitals in a room with someone else, by falling in love with someone else. You depart from that privilege and that thought-structure by interrogating everything.

It's taken a really long time to get clear on what I want and need from poly because so little of what I want or need overlaps with our society's ideal relationship. I internalized those messages -- you will be happy if you relate in certain ways -- and I wasn't happy. I had to learn that there were alternatives that could make me happy.

Whatever departs from normative structures will be stigmatized. Whatever worships at the alter of normative structures while having a little exotic window dressing-- well, it could still be stigmatized, but there's also a chance it'll be celebrated for a little while. Long enough for the illusion of diversity and choice, until the next one comes around.

The people who work in relationship with me are fundamentally incompatible with mainstream relationship structures. It's not possible to keep one foot in the way I relationship and the other foot in a relationship with normative structures because it's not a set of prescriptive behaviours that drives me. Rather, it's a set of philosophical underpinnings. Some of them are still aspirational and may always be. Even aspirationally, they still drive me in the other direction.

When I started all this it was fashionable -- and socially required -- to have a primary/secondary poly structure. Nowadays it's fashionable to eschew any difference in priority between partners -- called hierarchy in pop poly parlance -- and even any difference in any measurable factor. Instead of folks complaining that bad poly is insufficiently catering to a primary partner, they now complain that folks spend more time or money or enmeshment on one or another. Both of these environments are equally poisonous to frank discussion about wants and needs in a relationship. When folks are trying to avoid believing or saying they ascribe to stigmatized relationship type, they can't consider the full range of possibilities and then communicate what actually works for them; what they're willing or able to do is obscured by what they think they should do. There's not a ton of difference between this state and going along with monogamy because it's what's supposed to happen: even if your chosen relationship structure actually is the prescribed one, it's hard to believe it fully from the outside because so many folks are just going along.

Process

Two ways of drawing:

Sketch a very light, general outline across the whole canvas. Go back and add clearer lines, not always in exactly the same spot, working from large to small. Refine the lines more. Add shading. Refine the shading. First the thrust of the pictures emerge and then the details.

This will often capture proportion and composition exquisitely; detail may not be exact.

Put your pencil on the paper and your eye on the object. Move the pencil along with your eye, capturing a single line in continuous, careful, complete detail. The whole picture can be done in one continuous line, moving from detail to the next closest detail until the whole panorama has emerged.

This will often capture detail and nuance exquisitely; proportion may not be accurate.

Some of us are more suited to one technique than the other. Some finished products prefer one or the other process. Both are important in the world.

The former is often how I approach ideas in conversation: a broad sweep with the intent of going back with the other person and refining, adding here and erasing there. When thinking I work in either mode, depending, though I spend more time in the former.

Process

Two ways of drawing:

Sketch a very light, general outline across the whole canvas. Go back and add clearer lines, not always in exactly the same spot, working from large to small. Refine the lines more. Add shading. Refine the shading. First the thrust of the pictures emerge and then the details.

This will often capture proportion and composition exquisitely; detail may not be exact.

Put your pencil on the paper and your eye on the object. Move the pencil along with your eye, capturing a single line in continuous, careful, complete detail. The whole picture can be done in one continuous line, moving from detail to the next closest detail until the whole panorama has emerged.

This will often capture detail and nuance exquisitely; proportion may not be accurate.

Some of us are more suited to one technique than the other. Some finished products prefer one or the other process. Both are important in the world.

The former is often how I approach ideas in conversation: a broad sweep with the intent of going back with the other person and refining, adding here and erasing there. When thinking I work in either mode, depending, though I spend more time in the former.

Distance

I've been mostly up north for five years. During most of this time most of my romantic partners have lived far away, and often very far away (12 hour drive). It's become more familiar and comfortable than the long-distance relationships I had way back when. It's also become a little less distinct from close-by relationships: since it isn't really a goal for me to live close to partners we still need to sort out how often we'll phone/text etc, and how often we'll visit. Long-distance visitors stay for longer and visit more seldom, usually.

When Josh visited last he brought me some fish that he'd caught-- black cod, the result of several years of planning for him. Yesterday we agreed on a recipe (miso-mirin) and put the fish in to marinade in the morning, then cooked it while putting together some rice (& hollandaise and asparagus for me, and a salad for him) over video. Then we sat down over video and ate together. We could talk about cooking technique, his trip to get the fish, and normal dinnertime conversation. The dish was a good fit because it required minimal time to cook, most of the prep was done beforehand, but it was still interesting.

I really enjoyed that. I love cooking with my loved ones. I was feeling a little bit shaky -- he's starting a relationship with someone who was already a problematic metamour -- and that rooted us into a good, familiar, intimate space. Plus, unlike in person, we could give each other plant tours after dinner.

In a couple months he'll be in Arizona at least 3 weeks per month for at least two years, probably more until the covid situation sorts. I already miss him a lot and suspect I'll miss him more. I'm going to be sad and jealous when he doesn't choose to come up and see me during his time back. Neither of us knows what coming out the other side of this will look like.

But.

We've gone from a weekend relationship to living together to seeing each other a time or two a year. There is hope or expectation that at some point our lives will permit us a little more time together. If I move he's going to come build something with me so that, like now, when I look out the window of my home I can see projects we made together. It's hard but it's really good.

And I know he won't give me up for anyone.

Here's to more video dinners to come. I think next time we might do ma po tofu with the ground pork I sent back with him.

No, actually say what you mean

Some of my philosophical relationship underpinnings:

The upset feelings of a partner are not a cause for termination of relationships with other partners, friends, or family. Those upset feelings are taken seriously because of care and empathy, but actually or functionally ending other relationships is not seen as a valid option to address them. If a partner is so upset and unable to come to find some way to handle someone's free choice of association it's a compatibility issue, the same way as someone unable to come to terms with a choice of career or the identity of a parent or sibling would be.

Change is inevitable. The relationship is structured in such a way to not just tolerate change but to optimize and re-optimize in the face of changing structures. Ways of relating try not just to tolerate change but even welcome it.

Growth and self-exploration are supported and celebrated. Fundamentally this can't exist without tolerance to change in a relationship. Self-knowledge is a triumph in a world that encourages conformity but contains diversity. Sometimes new self-knowledge will impact logistics or relationship structure. There's room for feelings around that without minimizing how important it is for folks to better shape their lives to fit their own selves.

Effects are important. No matter what was intended, real outcomes of behaviour are acknowledged.

Intentions are important. No matter what the outcome, partners must trust each other not to act from maliciousness or intent to damage. This can take real work for me.

Self-awareness is a key responsibility of everyone involved. Repeated patterns don't get brushed off dismissively, but instead get interrogated. Big emotions get noted and considered. Thoughtlessness does not excuse behaviour once it's noted.

We're on a team. There isn't a sense of victory over a partner when we get them to do something they're reluctant to, nor a sense losses on our part where our partner is "winning". If these emotions arise frequently there's something serious going on and there might be a structural problem. Sorry, but the way mainstream couples talk about each other is abhorrent.

Every assumption of what belongs in a relationship can be interrogated. Not everything will be discarded, but there is always room to ask "I've always assumed this comes with a relationship, do we need this?" and honestly make space for the answer.

Very little of this works without shared goals. Shared goals do not need to be normative. Going for dinner once a week but not living together can be a shared goal. Most of my shared goals revolve around still relating to someone many years from now, in a place we're both happy. I also like short-term shared goals, like making crepes for brunch next weekend. Some of my goals even don't revolve around food, heh.

Goal-setting is best done openly and consensually, and not assumed.

Partners must feel loved and secure most of the time. Otherwise what's the point? Good ratios of the good stuff to the bad stuff are important.

Relationship ending or change is not a failure, and is expected.

Sex doesn't automatically create priority with someone. Senority doesn't automatically create priority with someone. Bigger or more performative pain doesn't automatically create priority with someone.

A sense of equality really, really helps. Pedestals and contempt don't serve intimacy.