Riding The Relationship Escalator

[7Wannabe5]

This essay offers interesting take on lock-in problem as it applies to conventional relationships http://solopoly.net/2012/11/29/riding-t ... or-or-not/

If ERE is systems theory applied to personal finance and permaculture is systems theory applied to agriculture, does it follow that polyamory is systems theory applied to romantic/sexual relationships? What if everyone did it?

[GandK]

After reading the article and mulling it over, I don't think that polyamory is applied systems theory, globally. Just a different single system that happens to take in most of the established escalator. It leaves out other things completely, such as asexuality, deliberate chastity, and living in happy singleness. You could not, therefore, apply it to all.

What if everyone did it? I think most people do it, to a degree and in passing:

polyamory - the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

I dated more than one person at a time in my teens and early twenties. I had feelings for more than one person at a time as well. So I know it's possible, and I know it's possible for me specifically. But that never felt like a desirable end state to me. It was more like a state of indecision. How much of that was my own preference, how much was biology, and how much was social conditioning, I'll never know. I don't really feel like it's worth the effort of examining. I just didn't like it, so I'll never deliberately pursue it.

My attitude toward dating and relationships has changed dramatically since that stage of my life, too. If, God forbid, something happened to G and I ended up single again, I would not date the way that I used to. Dating used to be partly about partner selection, and partly about entertainment. Today it would be entirely the former. That is, I would insist on remaining friends with someone during the "getting to know you" stage, and only progress to outright dating once I believed he and I were reasonably compatible and might have a chance at a long-term relationship.

First, there are so many things about me that are not mainstream now (and ER is only one of those). Most men would not be compatible with me or my goals at all, and I would definitely want to weed out the ones who wouldn't be before it ever came close to love or sex. Sex without official attachment does nothing but confuse me emotionally (I've tried), so having a partner(s) who are for sex only would not be on the table in my specific case. And second, friendship is its own happy ending. My life is nowhere near empty... I don't think I'd feel like I needed a SO. I'd be happier being friends with most people, and I'd rather not cloud those relationships that are better off as friendships with sloppy attempts at a romantic connection when we wouldn't really fit.

Polyamory for me, then? Extremely unlikely. Leaving aside the fact that I'm a practicing Christian (and in reality, I wouldn't), finding multiple human beings who'd fit neatly into my life AND who I'd find physically attractive enough to share intimacy with would be statistically next to impossible.

[7Wannabe5]

@GandK -I think the author did include all the possibilities including being happy with 0 or 1 partners in some other article I skimmed as consistent with polyamory. The number of partners doesn't matter as much as the limits.

One thing I am really mulling over is one blogger's assertion that although feelings of jealousy are natural and should be accepted as such and openly communicated, it is possible through developing one's own inner core of confidence and sense of security because valued as unique individual in relationship to the point that you would not be overly bothered if your romantic interest kissed another partner in front of you. I get how this is true on one level but there is another level on which I'm not quite buying it. But, I do not know because I have never been in a relationship where my partner gave me carte blanche to kiss other partners in front of him. Maybe in a situation that was completely above-board and inclusive of good-for-the-goose-and-gander equity, my emotional landscape could alter. One thing that has caused me some difficulty when single is that I tend towards becoming excessively nervous when I am dating more than one man, even if it's just dinner and holding hands. Maybe similar to the state of indecision you experienced?

Anyways, I think it is best to face fears head on and subject all convictions about self along the lines of "I am a ...." to intense scrutiny from every possible angle. For instance, I didn't believe that I could be happy or that life would even be worth living without coffee but I was wrong. So, perhaps, it is possible that it would or could be in alignment with self-aware, self-interest to smooth out all the wrinkles I put in my brain by reading every Jane Austen novel at least 5 times if it seems to me based on my interaction with reality that such an ideal might be best tossed on the compost pile of antiquities along with the notion of growing cabbages in widely spaced rows.

[TopHatFox]

If ERE is systems theory applied to personal finance and permaculture is systems theory applied to agriculture, does it follow that polyamory is systems theory applied to romantic/sexual relationships?

I agree that it is, and indeed, just like ERE and permaculture, poly is often met with asshats that misunderstand the concept but are nonetheless eager to share their opinions.

[Dragline]

If ERE is systems theory applied to personal finance and permaculture is systems theory applied to agriculture, does it follow that polyamory is systems theory applied to romantic/sexual relationships?

I agree that it is, and indeed, just like ERE and permaculture, poly is often met with asshats that misunderstand the concept but are nonetheless eager to share their opinions.

Maybe. But you can only drive one vehicle at a time, so how many do you really want to be owning or renting at the same time? (That story about free milk and a cow usually doesn't pan out too well.)

Like avoiding being owned by your things in terms of the time and resources they consume per "Fight Club", you may also prefer not to be owned by your relationships (a different F-Club). To each his/her own.

[Ego]

I agree that it is, and indeed, just like ERE and permaculture, poly is often met with asshats that misunderstand the concept but are nonetheless eager to share their opinions.

If this is a systems theory approach then you've got to factor in the asshats and their misunderstanding as part of the system.

WRT the original article, there are instances where increasing optionality by avoiding the lock-in problem effectively eliminates the most valuable option. To each his/her own.

[jennypenny]

Maybe. But you can only drive one vehicle at a time, so how many do you really want to be owning or renting at the same time? (That story about free milk and a cow usually doesn't pan out too well.)

Totally OT, but that reminded me of this https://youtu.be/ibrrJ5QMAZQ?t=8m52s (the bit is over two clips so it jumps to the next one in the middle).

[C40]

Maybe. But you can only drive one vehicle at a time...

Well, actually ......

[TopHatFox]

Maybe. But you can only drive one vehicle at a time...

Well, actually ......

But yeah, to Dragline & Ego, to each their own definitely. I do agree that it's possible to be "polysaturated"--too many partners. This is why I tend to only have one primary partner at a time, two max. Less commited connections with people tend to come and go so they do not require as big a time commitment; same with dates. It is really wonderful to have more than one person to reciprocate love with at a time, and, interestingly useful if you split ways with one partner. At least then you still have a strong (and different) bond with the second.

[jennypenny]

OK, now you guys just bragging.

I was grateful to find *one* person willing to have regular sex with me, so sealed the deal. As they say, a bird in the hand ...


@Zalo--I'm stealing "polysaturated" for my next book (so many ways to play that). I'm starting to think there's an untapped sub-genre in romance.

[7Wannabe5]

Dragline said: Maybe. But you can only drive one vehicle at a time, so how many do you really want to be owning or renting at the same time?

Right. That's why one of my new standards for being in my polyamorous circle is that you have to agree to make some effort to rescue me in the event of zombie apocalypse. You can never have too many people on your zombie apocalypse rescue team.

[Dragline]

I was actually planning on leading the zombies. Hoo-hoo-hah-hah-haahh!

[jennypenny]

I can see it now ... married zombies going after uninfected polyamorous people, who only get caught when they are too busy 'saturating' themselves to pay attention to where the zombies are.

Yeah, this is going to be fun to write.

[7Wannabe5]

Okay, seriously, this is from an AARP article on divorce after 50. The highlights are mine.

Older men may make out better financially than women, but they don't fare so well at finding someone to take care of them when they're older. "They often don't have alternative care networks the way women do," says Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University. "If a man gets divorced, his support in later life is gone. Plan B may be to remarry because he needs a caregiver."

After divorce, children often live with their mothers. If dads move away or don't stay close, adult children may not be willing to be caregivers when needed.

Remarriage for either ex is murky territory, too. "If you acquire a stepson when you're 60, will he help you when you're old?" asks Cherlin. "We're creating complex family relationships where we're related to more people but obligated to fewer." Even if there is a close bond, children may not live close by.

When asked who they'll turn to when they're older, single men often cite paid help, says Teresa Cooney, a gerontologist at the University of Missouri. But paid help is pricey, and can be hard to find. Up to half of the 5.4 million adults with Alzheimer's have no identifiable caregiver. Former spouses often step in, mainly to spare their children, or because no one else can, says Cooney.

The above compounded by the peculiar arrogance of the middle-aged man which generally leads him to believe that, on average, a woman 7 years younger than him is an appropriate match (has something to do with the French rule of thumb for outer bounds appropriate age for mistress being half your age plus 7)is the rational basis for why I am not seeking to enter into a committed long-term monogamous relationship at the age of 51, whereas I may offer different advice to my DD24.

I have also convinced myself that having sex on a regular basis is one of the most critical factors in increasing longevity and vigor into old age. Therefore, I have a rational basis beyond the fact that I enjoy sex with a strong partner like I enjoy a strong cup of coffee (I should note that I am also completely in accordance with the sentiment that sharing coffee with a dear old friend and/or adding a bit of cream and sugar to the experience are also qualities to be considered or valued.), to not choose to avoid committing myself to likely duty of care through practice of celibacy.

Anyways, keeping male lovers free-range is kind of like establishing a perennial bed. There is a good deal of work initially in terms of having to make your hair look pretty etc., but then they tend towards just regularly or irregularly circling around. I noticed this was true even when I practiced monogamy. They're kind of predictably unpredictable. For instance, in Michigan spring generally arrives very suddenly. One day there is snow on the ground and the next day it gets up to 70 degrees. And on that day, every boy or man who thinks he has a possible chance of having sex with you will e-mail, text, call, show up unannounced on his bike or honk and yell from a passing car. So, that is kind of fun,..and then it is time to plant your peas and watch for the daffodils : )

[Ego]

Yeah, I saw that dynamic play out at soylent towers. One guy went searching for the perfect nurturer just after his diagnosis and found a lovely woman. Biggest heart in the world. She nursed him through a terrible disease and allowed him to move in with her for the toughest parts. After he was cured he dumped her. At the time it seemed to me to be pretty despicable.

After seeing it with a few guys I got the impression that they were, in a way, satisfying each others needs. He needed a caretaker. She needed someone to take care of. It seemed as if these women were incapable of doing what you seem to have done. They failed to shift that nurturing nature to new, exciting projects of their own. Now that I think about it, the handful of older women at Soylent Towers who we respected most were those who refocused a good portion of their desire (compulsion? ) to nurturing back on themselves.

[JL13]

@Ego

There must be a strong similarity between the desire to have a pet and the desire to be caregiver for a sick man?

[7Wannabe5]

Ego said: Yeah, I saw that dynamic play out at soylent towers. One guy went searching for the perfect nurturer just after his diagnosis and found a lovely woman. Biggest heart in the world. She nursed him through a terrible disease and allowed him to move in with her for the toughest parts. After he was cured he dumped her. At the time it seemed to me to be pretty despicable.

Right. What has happened to me, with some variation on theme, a number of times is that I have found myself in the role of the younger woman that guy prefers as a sexual/romantic partner after he "dumps" the "nurse." One thing the grouchy old ladies say about the grouchy old men is "All they are looking for is a nurse or a purse." What is really true is that becomes what they are looking for in a peer relationship. I think this is mostly a semi-conscious self-interested mechanism. Middle-aged men simply do not grok that they are dating somebody younger than them until the difference in age is around 12 years. Anyways, me in the role of "the purse" is incomprehensible, laughable, not even in the realm of remote likelihood ever. Me in the role of "nurse", definitely some danger of occurrence, so I have to mind my boundaries.

They failed to shift that nurturing nature to new, exciting projects of their own. Now that I think about it, the handful of older women at Soylent Towers who we respected most were those who refocused a good portion of their desire (compulsion? ) to nurturing back on themselves.

Trying. In permaculture, your house is Zone O. I have decided my skin, obviously inclusive of my brain case and other bits and pieces, is Zone 00.

[Ego]

In permaculture, your house is Zone O. I have decided my skin, obviously inclusive of my brain case and other bits and pieces, is Zone 00.

That's good. Saved to my quotes.

@Ego
There must be a strong similarity between the desire to have a pet and the desire to be caregiver for a sick man?

I sometimes wonder.....

Most of my Millennials have pets... no, that's not actually true.... they have "Emotional Support Animals". Seriously, more than half. Partly because Emotional Support Animals are exempt from pet deposits or pet rents. Pathology of convenience. Two have puppy strollers. Just pathology.

I see them as surrogates. The once clear line between adolescence and adulthood is now very blurry, much more drawn out and atomized. Heck, I'm a forty-eight year-old adolescent in many respects. Same is true for seniors. They once played a role in taking care of grandchildren.

Different people cope with those changes in different ways.

One of the women in my spin class offered me a Golden Retriever puppy this morning. Cute dog. When I referred to it as an "it" she looked at me kind of funny. Not for me.

[7Wannabe5]

Zalo said: I agree that it is, and indeed, just like ERE and permaculture, poly is often met with asshats that misunderstand the concept but are nonetheless eager to share their opinions.

Right. I think I was likely a bit too flip, apologist and cranky-reductionist-rational-absurdist in my responses above. I would like to add my support to your dilemma by noting that, like you, the two men with whom I am currently in polyamorous relationship are both stand-up decent citizens of the planet, their communities, and their relationships. What I have come to believe is that every human being has a unique sexual identity and so does every sexual couple. There's a perspective from which you can describe your unrealized sexual relationship with any other person. For instance, "My sexual relationship with that person is no desire felt on my part, although enjoy his company as golfing companion." or "My sexual relationship with that person is semi-conscious desire every time she wears that red dress to work, but I choose to respect her overt monogamous contract with Brad." or "I am madly infatuated with him, but I realize that there is no sign of interest on his part." or "The two of us as bed-partners 8.8, we could likely make money if we uploaded the video, but if I would rather stick daggers in my eyeballs than listen to her conversation for the length of a two day road-trip." or "Has been a valued partner, friend and parent of our child for many years, and I love him dearly, but we both recognize that although we wish to continue as life companions, there is no longer sexual desire between us." or "I want to hold her hand as we ice skate and kiss her all afternoon long, but we both have priorities that preclude long-term commitment." etc. etc. etc. etc. Most people are polyamorous in the sense that it is not the case that they have only ever felt sexual desire or romantic attachment in relationship to 0 or 1 person. I would note that I think one of the mis-steps in the writing on the topic of polyamory that I have read is when it is promoted as being better than the "evils" of serial monogamy. Many people are serial monogamists, but few start out with that intention. I mean, it's too simplistic to offer polyamory as solution to the reality that humans as a species do not seem to be pair-bond-for-life creatures like swans or wholly promiscuous (judgment neutral term) like Bonobos. OTOH, although it is not a solution, I would offer the opinion that the overt practice is a result of the recognition of this reality combined with some other aspects of modernity such as the expectation of extended lifespan in good health, the frequent choice to have few children (if any), and some known to be often experienced problems with egalitarian marriage. IOW, my grouchy old lady dealing with grouchy old men gripes put aside, polyamory is the practice I am choosing at the juncture in my life because it is the one I find to be most in alignment with my general life philosophy which is something like neo-primitive, post-feminist, liber-communitarian, and, therefore, also in alignment with the practice of perma-culture.