FlippityPages Book Day 4: defining polyamory for my purposes, defining legibility
Legibility!
So for my book on not-polyamory that I said in my last post that I don’t even want to write, I have something like a definition of polyamory that I am using.
(Remember — write what is alive, do not judge yet, the organization could follow later, write the content of the book now to make nice and interesting later).
(One funny thing about “deep work” is that regardless of if you start off by “blocking out the world,” when you get deep enough, you block out the world sort of automatically. If my concept for the book started with a “vibe” or a “perceived need” or an “ethos” or a “feeling of shared understanding” I wanted to create in the zeitgeist to then build on — I no longer feel that, I am not in touch with that, and so really cannot discern what “connects with that and is interesting to people” and what is not. That is just the stage I am in, and that is cool. But it’s tricky, it’s a leap of faith, I am not even sure if *I* am interested in my writing, other than, “is the writing coming easily.”)
Ok.
So how am I using polyamory for this book about not-polyamory.
I’m definitely not referring to the monoculture, or any specific monoculture that has emerged.
I’m more referring to a specific process.
So take a couple. A normal monogamous couple. They have been married for 20 years. One of them cheats, they break up because cheating is bad, a violation of the vows. How could my partner throw it all away for somebody else? It was a broken promise.
So take a different couple. A normal monogamous couple. They have been married for 20 years. One of them cheats, they do not break up because although cheating is bad, it is not something that throws away 20 years of an otherwise good marriage.
I consider polyamory as the constellation of “maybe we shouldn’t break up” options.
Some people cheat, and then that starts a conversation about opening the relationship as an alternative to breaking up. Some people foresee cheating and so at the start want to create a setup where instead of cheating in secret, and then people finding out about it, that is restructured as a fun affordance already built-in to the relationship.
Some people think if over a 20 year relationship, some amount of cheating is possible, that might as well maximize for it being fun, rather than for it to be a pent up energy released at awkward times with awkward people.
There are some pros and cons of this.
The pros are the stated pros. Instead of having 20 years and then cheating once or twice, have 20 years of funny adventures and close friendships, and a closer relationship with your beloved person as you two truly know each other.
There are some cons.
One issue is that all the promises that are there for a good monogamous relationship there — are they actually going to be kept if somebody has a “wandering eye”? In some cases, yes. In some cases, no.
How do know if you are in the “yes” case or in the “no” case is a little tricky.
And this is actually a question I am quite interested in.
“Do you really love me, and all of my sexual messiness?” is a different question from, “Do you believe that I am going to do all I can to make you happy?”
The answer to both does not have to be yes or no. You can have a yes for one, and a no for the other.
You can really love a person, and all their flaws, messinesses, flows of desires, and not believe that they are going to put their all into making you happy. Growing with you, being on your team, having your back, telling you when they’re wrong, admitting when they’re wrong, sharing goals and aspirations and then remaining committed to them. Troubleshooting when people are going in different directions, to regroup and think about the goals again. The goals can mean having children, having a certain income as a family, friend group and friendship goals, having the sort of life where you can stay home and take care of many animals, or the opposite, travel together around the world. Will you commit to living together, and if one of you has to move for work, both move? These do not “happen automatically” from love. When people talk about “love is not commitment” this is in part what they mean. But also, this is part of the point of the question, “do you have enough love to make the commitment”
Under monogamy, “do you have enough love to make the commitment” is answered by the commitment and/or sacrament of marriage.
The question gets asked, and answered, during the marriage vows. Before the marriage, maybe you feel it in your heart, and so you are sure. maybe you both look at each other a certain way, or hold your hands a certain way, and so you “know.” You don’t “need to get married” in this situation because you both “already are married” in the ways that matter to you.
When this situation is the case, usually there is something else “running in the background” that is legible to both people — perhaps as legible or even more legible than the process of getting married. Maybe both people got to college, with the strong idea that they want to find their person young, and stay with that person forever, and “the person they like the most in college, when there are so many people to catch their attention — the person they actually like the most and feel most “naturally drawn to to spend the most time with, casually and then romantically” is the person who they should marry, and put a lot of effort into making the relationship work. This could be very sweet. A couple like this might be ambivalent on if they ultimately stay monogamous or become polyamorous. They have something legible that is creating a baseline for their relationship that is not sexual exclusivity. They were each other’s special person in college and do not have plans to drift apart, because both of the parties are committed to buffer against the drifting. However, if only one of the parties feels this way, then this is a very different situation. Perhaps one of the parties is still hung up on their high school ex, who was their first true love, and so the “college love” is nice but feels less romantic than the very deep, first love thing. Perhaps one of the parties still feels young, and like there is a long road ahead post-college (perhaps they are already thinking about grad school while in undergrad — which is typical if you have an idea that you may want to go to grad school) and so “getting tied down young” feels like a strong pull against committing to the “sweet college love” concept.
I think this might be the second time I had Brough up “legibility” in my notes, with the first time being on the first day, without fleshing out the concept. But it is a very important concept. I do believe that successful monogamous and polyamorous relationships depend on legibility. And a lot of people have a lot of incentives to mask legibility to keep optionality open. If your partner doesn’t know that you don’t have working plans to make a good deal for them, they would leave. But maybe you genuinely love them and don't want them to leave before working out your own feelings.
But so going back to that example.
If you are that college couple, and both of you were mostly not dating before you found your person, and focused on studying, but maybe you dated a little bit here and there, and then when you met your person in college they are really your person, then you can stay unmarried for 11 years and both be pretty comfortable with it. Perhaps one person will start to get antsy. Or one person will start feeling so secure that they don’t feel they “need” to get married in order to maintain what is good about the relationship. But my point here with the example is that “there is something legible there about the process of choice, that creates a feeling of security, distinct from sexual exclusivity. Sexual exclusivity might be still super important to them, but identifying that there at least *is* this other thing is important.
Now.
Other examples.
Virginity. That’s another one! “You have not had sex with anybody else before. I will be your first, and I will be your only, til death do us part.” That is pretty legible. And then something like cheating would indeed be a very big violation in this set up. As would lying about the premise (if you were actually not a virgin). In this scenario, the legibility and the sexual exclusivity make a 1-1 Venn diagram. That is the thing. That is the entire agreement. There can be some other things, for example, “You’re a virgin and also you’re the virgin I love you the most,” but then the way you show that this is the virgin you love the most is by taking each other’s virginity. The method and message are very much tied into sexual exclusivity.
I am not sure if I am explaining this well. There may be a better way to explain this.
But “having illegibility” and “trying to get legibility while the person you love is trying to obfuscate legibility” is a major problem in both mono and poly dating. Even “Are you mono” or “are you poly” can end up being pretty illegible.
Let me try to brainstorm all the words that I know so far, around how people can answer this question. this should definitely be a chart in the book.
monogamous
exclusive
faithfully married
trad
monogamish
biblical patriarch
swinger-ish
kind of slutty
has a being cucked fetish
has a cucking fetish
doesn’t want to be married
likes being in groups
on the poly-spectrum
polyamorous
poly slut cloud
If you look at this list, you can see that there are a lot of things in the middle of an axis, and you can also see that more axes are needed. you can also notice that “creating legibility with a person about what you are willing to commit and what you want in return” can be tricky.
I don’t think that monogamous or poly relationships fundamentally follow a super different structure. I think that thinking about polyamorous relationships forces one to think about the implicit bedrock structures in monogamous relationships that people don’t always talk about, and that misalignment on does lead to divorces.
“I like you because I’m ignoring a bunch of things about the world, and you don’t mind that I’m ignoring those things and actually let me and value that I’m ignoring those things, and you’re ignoring those things too and I value that about you!” can actually be a surprisingly nice handshake for people! Handshakes around “not growing in a bunch of ways” can be common, though I don’t know how common compared with people who make handshakes around growing in certain ways.”
I suspect the people who are successful in both mono and poly have legibility in these areas about *what they are actually doing together.*
As for motivations for things being legible and illegible, something like “I think something should change because the sex is bad” can be replied to by something like “I am surprised I think the sex is really good” both by someone who genuinely thinks the sex is really good, and genuinely wants nothing to change because the sex is good or reveal that they have lower standards for good sex, by somebody who likes the sex well enough but doesn’t want to lose it, or by somebody who also thinks the sex is bad but wants not to change anything or lose sexual access by agreeing. Illegibility! For a seemingly basic question!
Other assorted notes
You can just create feelings in your mind
If you like yourself more poly is easier
You are hotter to your longterm partner than you think you are
If you do stuff with 1 partner the other super wants to do with you thats a failure mode
Big glowy fuzzy.how much big glowy fuzz does one person get compared to others?
What kind of not breaking up after an affair thing are we doing? And if we both agree its a bad reason to break up, what kind of sex wont lead to that, and can we agree to have it so its fun so it doesnt matter
if she wants you to shower after the hospital, or after an airplane, she might want you to shower after sex. if she’s uptight in other areas of her life she will be in poly stuff. don’t assume that’s her being mad *about the sex secretly* or her *holding double standards* for everything. if someone is texting their crush all the time are they also *texting everybody else* all the time. stuff like this is important for calibrating reactions and what would “make the poly work” versus you don’t really like the person’s general habits around stuff like cleanliness, disgust, etc.
If you say you’re super against doing something then go do it with another partner yeah you have some explaining to do. That breaks legibility hardcore. People on forums will say all kinds of different things, about if it was “reasonable for them to ask for that” or “how much autonomy did you agree to” and “was it ever a real promise” and “was it a fair promise for them to ask for” but I think the main issue here by far is the breaking of legibility. No matter *what* the story was around “why you couldn’t do it with them” — it seems like a false story, and to get out of this hole you two are going to need to coordinate on the *story level* to bring back legibility.
yes, I do believe a large part of monogamous and polyamorous relationships is the creation of a shared mythos.
What kind of villain do you want to be? What kind of hero? Where does the medium of invention end?
When do you let yourself be pure being? When do they? When do they let you?
When do they get to be in the driver’s seat, in a fun way? When do you? When do they get to be completely relaxed, with everything taken care of? When do you?
For next time — conflicts between partners. what you seek out in someone else is likely not what your own partner is optimizing for. “being nice” to other people in a special way likely means you are actually screwing over your partner in some way, not in just “time” but in “what kind of person you’re being” in a way that doesn’t have to do with “infinite amount of love” or whatever and has much more to do with the kinds of person your partner is looking for you to be, versus the kind of partner other people expect you to be.