Poly Means Many: There are many aspects of polyamory. Each month six bloggers ALBJ, Delightfully Queer, An Open Book, More Than Nuclear, Rarely Wears Lipstick, and The Boy With The Inked Skin will write about their views on one of them. This month we?re talking about ?commitment?.
??but doesn?t a ?relationship? have to be monogamous? Otherwise there?s no commitment and without commitment it?s more of a ?sexual friendship?- right?!?
Wrong. The above is a comment on my Facebook wall beneath the timeline pin announcing my open relationship. I include it here verbatim only because it is such a perfect encapsulation, punctuation and all, of a very, very common reaction to non monogamy.
We are told many myths about commitment. We are told than men are afraid of it, that women need it, and that it itself, the act of ?committing, pledging, or engaging oneself?, is difficult and requires both incentive and threat.
We have, in almost all aspects, attempted to legalise commitment. To make our pledges punishable should we break them. One?s work, relationship(s), religion, promises of all flavours have become things to which we commit with paperwork, signatures and with the knowledge/permission of the state. We have, in so many ways, stopped viewing commitment as a condition of sincere intent but instead began to see it as one?s legal obligation.
My partner and metamour aren?t married after near-14 years. To many this ?proves? the lack of commitment indicated by his also loving me. How? They have loved and supported each other for 14 years and that?s more committed than most people by a statistically significant margin. They own a house ? this fact placates the doubters. It?s on paper, defecting from it is punishable. He shares his time with me, but he is ?already committed?, as if it is singular? As if you can commit to only one item per category, one person, one job, one cause?
My other partner is married, and because of this I don?t need to tell you how long they?ve been together, or that thy own a house, or have a daughter. You believe it?s real because that?s what marriage is: a social tool to legitimise relationships.
Am I/they/you more or less committed to A since I started caring about B? Jobs, causes, relationships ? each may receive different attentions/enthusiasms on any given day, but commitment isn?t a day-to-day measure. It?s measured not in the moment, but over years.
It?s interesting that looking at our arrangement, to the average person, there are three narratives with only one thing in common.
1) He ?really? loves her, and I?m just a bit on the side because he can
2) He ?really? loves me, but leaving her would be difficult/complicated
3) He doesn?t ?really? love either of us.
?Real love?. The genuine stuff. The stuff we ?prove? with commitment instruments like marriage and property.
Am I committed to my job because I signed a contract, or did I sign a contract because I am committed to my job?
When we talk about poly, people don?t really want to know how you can love more than one person. Everyone knows how to love more than one person; from a single partner, children, parents, close friends ? they want to know how you can ?commit? to more than one person. How you make it ?real? love.
Then the question that always arises, the ?proof? of where commitment actually lies:
What if [he] had to choose?
Well, recently we made a commitment. Not publicly, not legally, but an understanding and an agreement amongst and for ourselves, that of the seven stakeholders (Yes, 7! Him, Her, Me, two romantic relationships, a friendship and a group) we would prioritise the latter. Above our selfish-selves, or any component unit, we would prioritise the set. As a family.
What does that mean, though, without paperwork?
To me it means that we will defend, protect and support each other as long as we want to. If we no longer want to, we will be as honest and kind as we can possibly be in the pursuit of alternative happiness. When we get things wrong, or hurt each other, we will apologise and seek to learn from what happened.
No piece of paper or legal construct could make me feel these things. If I could legitimise them legally, yeah, I might. If only for the social understanding that I am neither being taken advantage of nor emotionally naieve.
The short version, though, is it isn?t her relationship with him vs my relationship with him. It?s us (3) against you. And that?s a promise.
Source: http://www.albj.co.uk/2012/c-word/
taylor allderdice vincent jackson vicki gunvalson pierre garcon brown recluse spider wiz khalifa taylor allderdice eddie royal
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.