Wife-In-Law
Sep. 2nd, 2019 06:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2019-09-09 09:52 pm (UTC)i ran into her a few months later at an event and she wanted to re-process the whole thing with me. free emotional labor, again, no thank you. i ducked, hard - told her i can't be friends with her under these circumstances (in my book, boundraries that poor are likely to be repeated in more than one relationship; time to cut my losses there). i have had that pattern repeat a couple times. anymore, i don't go out of my way make friends with people just because Alan is dating them; there has to be some kind of inherent friend-chemistry between us outside of the metamour relationship.
no subject
Date: 2019-09-16 08:29 pm (UTC)I find so many people seek me out when they start dating a partner. These are people who have had access to me on fb or journals for anywhere from some time to a very long time, but suddenly both doing sex with the same person makes me worth their time. That feels awfully dehumanizing to me, as if I'm just an extension of my partner to be devoured along with everything else during all-consuming NRE. It also tends to come with a sense of entitlement to my time, and an expectation that I'll moderate myself to be less "intimidating" (which I think has something to do with doing things I like, and feeling ownership over my life?)
I'm definitely enjoying taking my emotional space back!
no subject
Date: 2019-09-16 08:42 pm (UTC)that is exactly it! i was so mad at her for not just telling him what she needed. like, how in the world do you expect anybody to be able to meet a need you won't state? argh.
that "i'm not actually your friend until i'm your metamour" bit there is totally dehumanizing. i'm glad you're able to exercise your boundaries and reclaim your time & emotional energy!
i was reading this article earlier today on how someone manages inter-relationship emotional energy by "staying in my lane" - https://lovingsolo.wordpress.com/2019/09/14/big-homie-better-grow-up-how-staying-in-my-lane-helps-me-manage-the-emotional-labor-i-do-in-relationships/
no subject
Date: 2019-09-16 08:56 pm (UTC)It's not much of a way to run a relationship though.
Boundaries are so great. Yay boundaries!
Thank you for sharing! That piece was apparently inspired by a discussion sparked by a question I asked about all this in my solopoly group!
I'm super geeky about relationships so I always want to go into "this and then this and then this created a feedback loop and this is how I manage the feedback loop to enjoy the ride wile trying to set reasonable expectations" and "whoah, I expected x y and z dynamic in this relationship because I was connecting it to these past experiences, but in actuality I've got a, b, and c dynamic out of it and it broke my pattern of n from three relationships back that I was getting uneasy about, I think that's because in my mother's family...."
I am learning that type of relationship analysis is not what most people want, and they experience as interrogation rather than sharing and interest. Sigh. Like the author says, pulling folks into it isn't really consent-- and without consent other folks can't experience it as play, like I do.