Editor’s Note: This column of Maria’s, which first ran on Aug. 25, 2012, is one of my favorites for its discussion of the difference between ‘rules’ and ‘boundaries’ in relationships — whether poly or mono. — Amanda
By Maria Padhila
Back at the beginning of this year, Franklin Veaux, a singularly astute and knowledgeable writer on relationships, put up an essay: “Polyamory: Some thoughts on rules.”
Since then, the idea of rules vs. boundaries has bubbled up both in forums where Veaux has been writing and speaking and among other poly forums and commentators.
I’ve found it really interesting myself. It’s a long piece, but I’d even call it required reading for relationships. Even monogamous ones — do you have a rule that your significant other can’t go to strip clubs, for instance? Read this.
The point is not, not, not to convince you you’re wrong about having rules or standards. You and your significant might still decide strip clubs aren’t for you, but after working through the processes and techniques outlined here, the difference is that you’ll understand why — and you may also decide that you aren’t going to buy electronics made in China, for instance.
Veaux came to the topic, he says, because he himself finds relationships tend to work better when not under what he calls “a codex of regulations that would make a bureaucrat blush.”
Being from Washington, D.C., I can assure Mr. Veaux that bureaucrats have no shame, but yeah, I can agree. His position is still contrarian, however, when you consider that for most people thinking of polyamory, laying down the ground rules is the first rule they’re given by others. Veaux writes:
Often, when I say that [no rules], folks will look at me as though I’ve sprouted an extra head. “How can you have a relationship without rules?” I’ve been asked by poly folks. “I mean, sure, that’s all well and good if you just want anarchy, with people running around doing whatever they want with no commitment, but you can’t build real relationships that way!”
Which is a bit of a head-scratcher to me, because it sounds quite a lot like a monogamous person telling a poly person “How can you have a relationship without monogamy? I mean, sure, that’s all well and good if you just want anarchy, with people running around shagging whoever they want with no commitment, but you can’t build real relationships that way!”
Veaux first looks at the differences between rules and boundaries, defining (for himself, now — remember this is to touch off more communication, not simply to set up a different set of rules!) rules as something one person imposes on another, and boundaries as something you set for yourself. Here are his examples:
Rule: “I forbid you to have un-barriered sex with any other person.”
Boundary: “In order to protect my sexual health, I reserve the right to discontinue having sexual intercourse with you if you have unbarriered sex with any other person.”
Being from the self-responsibility camp (from both my pagan background and from burner inclinations) this appealed to me greatly. How, after all, can I really control another’s behavior? Let alone that I don’t want to have to. (I say, as I sit here after laying down the pool rules for a group of kids — no running, no yelling, no diving. I am the hard-ass in the group, always, when it comes to controlling kids. But those are kids. I don’t want to have to police my lovers that way.)
He points out what he calls a “hidden cost” to rules, one I tend not to think about too often. The rules are usually made by the original or primary couple — and the success of any relationship, as he says, is judged by how well the primary couple makes it.
Do the ‘secondaries’ get any say? Not usually. But isn’t considering the impact on, and of, all parties the essence of polyamory?
Confusing, hmmm?
Typical rule he cites, for instance: “I forbid you to go to Clayton’s House of Clams with any other date, because that’s the restaurant where we had our first date.” But what if the new person likes the special at Clayton’s too? Too bad; it would hurt the one who ‘got there first’ too much. But does the original partner really care that much about clams — or is it all about what happens when you open up that clam, so to speak?
Often, in my experience, people use rules as indirect, passive ways to try to get their needs met. Instead of clearly articulating the need, such as ‘I have a need to feel special and valued by you,’ they will think of something that makes them feel special and valued, and then pass a rule to say ‘I require you to do this thing’ or ‘I forbid you to do this thing with others.’
Recently, I sent a big list of dates for the next couple months to both Isaac and Chris. I put Isaac’s time in green and Chris’ in purple. I also pointed out a weekend when we didn’t need child care, Isaac was working a long, fast-turnaound pair of shifts, and Chris was free. I said I wanted to stay with him those nights.
But we have a rule about overnights — I only ‘get’ to have them when I’m traveling with Chris. Isaac grumbled something about “I guess the rules don’t mean anything.” I said I didn’t particularly care about the rules, seeing as how the calendar I’d sent was almost solid green, and that he was working the whole time, and that I really needed that time. The rule began to seem arbitrary and even a little nonsensical. The need behind it was not to leave one person stuck home alone and lonely (or taking care of kids) while others are out having fun. Even though I’m not responsible for another person’s feelings of loneliness, I want to do what I can to help someone I love feel OK with things (or better, most of the time).
Here’s the simple — not to be confused with easy — fix that Veaux proposes:
Whenever someone proposes a rule, I make it a habit to ask myself three questions:
1. What is the purpose of this rule?
2. Does the rule serve the purpose it is intended to serve?
3. Is this rule the only way to serve this purpose?
Veaux points out that even the most strongly held rule by many — rules about protection of sexual health — are actually there to serve other purposes. Such a rule could be less about preserving health and more about helping a ‘fluid-bonded’ few feel more exclusive to each other.
Of course STD rules and concerns matter. Please don’t write in and tell me I’m crazy to say they don’t, because that’s not what I’m saying, and I’m neither crazy nor stupid. But if what’s behind that rule is a need to feel exclusive, how workable and effective is that rule really going to be? Doesn’t it have a good potential for failure? And then, nobody gets what they want or need.
As Veaux says: “Talking openly about what’s really going on below the surface is scary, and hard, and involves making ourselves vulnerable. But we poly folks talk all the time about how important communication is. It’s even more important that we actually do it. Even when it’s hard. Especially when it’s hard.”
As Veaux says: “Talking openly about what’s really going on below the surface is scary, and hard, and involves making ourselves vulnerable. …
What jumps out at me is how rare it is that modern persons know what’s going on below their own surface. Boundaries, ability to think, responsively feel, and communicate with are conditioned out of us. The two defaults become either self-interest or self-sacrifice, which serve the same purpose: survival.
I am speaking on a personal level, what I have observed on my own growth path, sharing with others who seek a higher path of love, altruism, authentic communication, higher ground in every way, and know they (we) are constantly looking through a private lens fogged by self interest or sacrifice.
If we could somehow remember it is all supposed to be fun! Negotiating boundaries, patiently holding space for knowing what one (self or another) really feels, not being afraid to declare it, not being triggered by a flash of anger, letting passion loose, what another might think. Being human is so interesting!
Alex, reading PW I’m often struck by how well the contributors express themselves. Just read your piece again which is very clear.
Self respect feels more flexible on all levels? – space for others and self, freedom and limit as necessary in all directions etc etc.
Happy WE to all!
There’s a Talmudian saying (it’s the only one I know…): Rules are there for those that don’t know what they are for!
moved by love? Could be just appreciating where someone is ‘at’ – like freeing a trapped bird, or keeping it safe until it can fly again and letting it go. A practicality almost.
Alex, Jude (not sure), authentic self, greatest grandest vision of yourself, and loads of examples of the effect that we have on the present with who we are. And that down is up moment in Pirates of the Caribbean 3.
Self interest – try Midnight Run with Robert de Niro. Seriously funny film. Authentic even. And the agenda: self interest self interest self interest, oh! that is so unexpected!
Also if ‘who do you love’ is the clarifying question:
Who do you love?
Me.
And?
Me
And?
Me
And?
Me.
ad nauseam
Not much of a dynamic/conversation? I liked the idea (when I stumbled across it) that artists are often problem solvers who don’t have to stick to any rubric – ie legal if you are a lawyer, physical if you are a mechanic etc. An artist can come at a problem from any angle and some of the solutions are highly original. Can’t human being be substituted for artist?
I’m not sure self interest is a solution. It may be a practical position (in extremity) but not necessarily. Sometimes it is more important (authentic) to act with the flow of the universe or in the interests of others than in your own small interest. It is possible to analyse it and say yes well finally it is in your own self interest 3 times removed to do that. But I’m not sure, sometimes you are moved by love for someone that is beyond yourself – a gift. Free of strings. Not something that can be factored in. And the structure is different – ?a tipping point rather than ‘gain’. Down is up, and rise!
(or something!)
xxxp
Self interest might be self love, but it is not Love.
This article is not about breaking rules, it is about self gratification at the expense of others.
Not impressed at your agenda.
No short short shrift to Maria either, whose cogent observations and lucid writing sparked this exchange.
Jude and Alex: Thank you both so very much. Your earned stature, as well as cognition, far surpass my own. It is an honor to have basked in your wisdom for so little in return to you.
pam: No short shrift to you either. You are among the first to justly acknowledge, and also the first to know when a remonstration is in order. Thank you. It is a comfort knowing that you swim so well in the deep end of the pool.
So, if I might join this conversation, perhaps allowing one’s life to become a transparency for larger service, love without expectation and awe in the small, intimate and mystical moments of transformation that such a path allows is the very highest form of self-interest. Perhaps. Something to consider, at least.
Always recognition, Len! Never disparagement.. It is difficult not to be misunderstood with differences in cyberspace. Agreed that traditional and modern astrology have considerable overlap. The points of departure are certainly pronounced when it comes to the status of human nature and possibilities. That departure point is a huge talking point. Critical engagement is necessary when looking at any action theory ensuing.. what are human limits? Meaty stuff! 😉
Alex: Please accept my sincere thanks for so clearly, efficiently, and eloquently setting the issue out there. i respect your point of view. It is worthy of respect, as you are. My humble proposal in response is that the resolution be left to the process of cumulative observation and correlation that (as the late, great Robert Blaschke noted repeatedly) both traditional and modern astrology have in common; rather than subjected to an adversarial polemic that would do neither side credit. i really do like you as your comments here have represented you, and would very much like to have our differences be a cause for recognition rather than disparagement.
I beg to differ, Len! What you assert here is a legacy of modern, psychological astrology. Traditional astrology construes matters differently, seeing that indeterminate free will, positive thinking and reality creation are not a fait accompli. Traditional astrology is much more realistic and does not conclude that everything can be changed by mere dint of personal effort.
Self interest across the species IS a given and no amount of psychological and semantic gymnastics can change that!
The human condition is not a default or a given, it is as we make it. The responsibility is ours. The opportunity is likewise ours.
PS 2 sided I agree, or even it seems the relationship is a third entity/has its own integrity/interest.
Self interest. Hope it’s not the only possibility! (A third position from synthesis between opposing needs? or an objective position ie that wins on merit, that on necessity, or even a double act like trapeze artists trust and rely on each other in their ‘dance’)
But how you respond is within your influence.
What about generosity, taking responsibility, and vicarious suffering, and giving a lead – none of these are self interested (or don’t have to be). Or not always. Just given freely.
My Dad used to repeat a little poem
Love ever gives, forgives, outlives,
And ever stands with open hands
And while it lives, it gives.
For this is love’s prerogative
To give, and give, and give.
I’m old and compromised/more world weary these days but when ACIM speaks of Love it is that kind of love rather than anything to do with self interest? ?A stepping out into something whole by nature.
And there is a visiting cat (for half a year who loves the 4 cattes and they love him back) who by chance now has a drained abscess on his flank just where the other cats have their stitches. his ‘person’ said when she sprained her ankle he developed a limp in the same foot. Is that coincidence. Isn’t that interesting? He is the most calm and interesting cat in general.
Pam, I think the vision you articulate is a noble one. But the fact remains that virtually without exception, self interest governs the human condition. We are talking the bottom line here. One’s personal values do not come into it. You have to deal with what is. In the context of Maria’s piece re rules or boundaries, the recourse to boundaries is an attempt to acknowledge individual autonomy, without resorting to force. But in reality this attempt only works in the arena of the autonomous person’s personal development. It does NOT help at all in regulating the relationship, because that has to be a two-sided, dynamic process. In reality, where one party is making freeing decisions and others not, there is an even greater rupture evidenced in the relationship. Rules are so often chosen (even by enlightened types) because it is so much clearer than the murky waters of subjectivity and nuanced ethics.
Rules are much better in many instances than vague, flexible boundaries. And that is because such are only ever expressions of social technology. The point is to look at the person using the regulatory mechanism, rather than advocating one mechanism as superior. It is not. It is in fact, all about the largely invisible qualities of discernment and awareness of timing and effective conduct. But we get left with the usual confusion of either/or and the uncertainties born of the fact that either/or gives us precisely no situation-specific tools.
Liked this piece, thank you Maria!
Alex, I always feel as tho I’m missing the point in these discussions!
I don’t mind what people do, I mind if I’m not heard. If heard (truly) and the other person can’t accommodate me, it doesn’t matter. What matters is how vital what I needed to be heard was, and if I judge the other person makes honest decisions with regard to me, how important that other person is to me (ie if I can modify my position), and whether it is a point of being (rather than ego), and if it seems important to verify if I have indeed been understood and heard (ie from other angles/planes), or a question of raising awareness on either side.
Things that aren’t vitally important I’m not really worried about unless it gets to the point where the other person is taking the p***. What matters is the general direction – if basically you are pulling together, or not going in a mortal error direction, and as long as the other person is aware.
With children it is important to follow the lines through more precisely so that they see (understand) and are aware generally and specifically ie emotionally literate.
Same goes for animals.
Our modern world is so brutal. perhaps it always has been but the dislocation is so enormous, often. I had a cat and kept two of her kittens – she was with them for a full nine months, still feeding them once a day, teaching them to hunt what was dangerous more and more in an observation role etc etc and at nine months shlak! on their own. Another cat now with 3 daughters a year old, all independent but they are still family – congregate in the sun, at meals, in passing each other.
Look at our modern societies: kids farmed out, often both parents at work, little/no contact with the land. Lots of machinery, technology, high expectations of standards of living, virtual stuff, workplaces that have no contact with nature, everything ready to go. Is this aquarian energy too, this lack of basic rooting?
50 new hens arrived this week, débutante, 5 and a half months old, raised in a huge barn (20,000 chicks?) with double walls (controlled lighting), they had never seen the sun, or felt the wind or had their feet in the mud. Pretty, gentle (raised together so not isolated), but lacking guidance. I put them on their perches to sleep until they get it for themselves, I talk to them, they trust me, I sit outside, they come around me and explore, amazed, leaping as though they get a charge sometimes from having their feet in the earth. Ruffling their feathers in the wind. Just the freedom in it. Until they dare to try.
Wish them well!
And all this trolling and ‘orc’ stuff. Lots of people seem to see beauty and want to f*** it or cage it or own it or eat it.
Why!
Alex it isn’t a case of controlling other people or their positions but of seeing them as they really are and seeing if you have something to contribute/do together. Respecting boundaries or daring to reach through them perhaps (if you can follow through with the trust that makes between you). Working together.
Communication is a difficulty. Even the same words go in different directions for different people/cultures/genders/generations etc etc etc!
And these cats. Trust. And I have spayed them. It is not evident. (zillions of kittens? Vegan? Trust! I and Thou by Martin Buber!)
Control?! How do we minimise innate (sp) violence. Is there a way of easing it out.
How!
And what about paradox. Where does that come in.
(seriously)
Basically, everybody is attempting to organise their personal reality and perceptions attendant to it. You cannot control the other’s reality but can attempt to control their behaviour to fit your own protocols. There are either rigid rules or negotiation. Rules are easier ways of managing power struggles (for the one who gets to set the rules). Negotiation is messy and in principle, constantly fluid. Most people can’t manage that. A completely laissez faire approach is the only “out” which preserves autonomy but the emotional self-regulation must be high level. Otherness can NEVER be managed through ANY protocol. Learning this is one of life’s biggies.. Even where it is about practicalities, keeping count or failing to keep count, offers little solace. There us no correct weighting above and beyond how you feel about the situation and whether or not those feelings are respected.. and heeded.