This guest column is by Edward Martin, III
This is something I don’t understand.
If I say “There’s no such thing as a white pigeon” and someone shows me a white pigeon, I have to admit I’m wrong, right? I mean, there’s the pigeon. It’s white.
And there’s no harm in BEING wrong, near as I can tell. Maybe I had never SEEN white pigeons before, or had been told by someone claiming to be a zoologist that no pigeon can be white, but once I’m looking at a white pigeon, you would think the gig is pretty much up, right? I mean, it doesn’t get more complicated than “Well, I guess I was wrong — there ARE white pigeons.”
So, I readjust that part of my head. You won’t catch me telling people “There are no white pigeons” because, well, that would just be stupid of me.
So, there’s that.
Now, on the other hand, think of all the divorces going on. Think of all the breakups, the miserable marriages ended even more miserably.
Think of all the violence done upon someone by their own partner. It’s so popular that there’s a special NAME for it: “domestic violence.”
What the fuck kind of situation could be so screwed up it would provide a phrase such as “domestic violence”? Man!
Yet, at no point in time do people in general say “See, marriage doesn’t work. Partnering with someone else just doesn’t work.” They don’t! They might say “Well, of COURSE it can work, but both folks have to want it to, and they have to be somewhat compatible.” (or some nice variation).
These are two examples of some really dingleberry perspective.
Let’s look at the first one.
You can’t throw a rock on a poly board or thread without hitting someone who is convinced it just can’t work. Definitely OUTSIDE of such an environment, you’ll find all sorts of people insisting there are no white pigeons — er, I mean, insisting that relationships with multiple partners can’t work.
This is, of course, odd to hear if you happen to be a part of a relationship that IS, in fact, working quite well, thank-you-very-much. There are lots of them out there, in fact, all defying the odds and exhibiting their audacious streak by, well, by WORKING.
So, they can work. Quite well, in fact.
Now let’s look at the second thing above.
Everybody has relationship troubles here and there. It’s natural. It’s fine. It’s expected. But it’s not necessarily a result of the structure. Multiple partners is not a system that is that much more difficult than any other relationship situation.
So, on those occasions when a relationship falls apart, it just doesn’t make one whit of sense why people would blame the shatter on the fact that there are more than two adults involved. It’s a complete red herring! The problem is with one or more of the people involved, or their personal issues, or some incompatibility between two or more members of a group.
It has nothing to do with having multiple partners — in fact, the folks I know who seem most convinced that multiple partners just can’t work are usually the folks who wind up cheating on their partners and causing all sorts of dramatic fuss.
This is not to say ALL of ’em are like this. Just every single one I’ve ever seen.
And I’ve been watching for a long time.
So, I think it’s about time those two chunks of nitwittery were finally laid to rest. Multiple partner relationships CAN work because for many people, it simply DOES. Also, as a corollary, if a relationship fails, breaks down, or goes ’splody, it probably has NOTHING to do with the fact that it’s multiple partners — just the people involved.
Okay, I think that’s about enough for tonight.
Perspective: Grab Some — it’s FREE! © 2009, Edward Martin, III
Used by permission
All Rights Reserved
Edward Martin III’s a writer and filmmaker living in the Pacific Northwest. Other essays and reflections of his can be found at http://www.petting-zoo.org/NonFiction.html and his movies can be found at http://www.guerrilla-productions.org/ he also does these animations: http://www.petting-zoo.org/Hardcore.html
“Also, as a corollary, if a relationship fails, breaks down, or goes ’splody, it probably has NOTHING to do with the fact that it’s multiple partners — just the people involved.”
Um, if it’s the people involved, the fact that there are *more* people involved sounds like it can be very much a factor.
“It’s so popular that there’s a special NAME for it: “domestic violence.””
It’s not that it is *popular*, it is that some people want to distinguish it from other types of violence.
People are trained from birth two things. One: you will meet your Prince Charming/obedient Princess one day, and two: it is highly embarrassing to admit to being wrong, it is less embarrassing to stubbornly cling to your wrongness and shout louder about it to cover your mistake. Weird but it’s true.
And regarding the more people… I think it’s about teamwork. You get a group of people together and it’s easier to problem-solve. If you’re always in an argument in a “normal” couple, well, you blame the other person. If there’s three, four, five, of you, and every argument involves you, it’s so much harder to hide from the fact that you are the problem (I speak from experience).
So if any poly relationship fails it’s because it’s more than two adults, does that mean if any marriage fails it’s because it IS (just) two adults? In other words, yes, I agree, the reasoning is flawed.
It is just a rule of human nature that there are people who look, and people who see – and a whole lot of people who only see what they want to see. Keeps them from having to admit to being wrong about something they may have based their whole miserable life on.
Is that a white pigeon out there?
“Multiple partners is not a system that is that much more difficult than any other relationship situation.”
hmm… speaking only for myself, my experience has been that more people IS more difficult. yes, there are pros that make the challenge worth it, and sometimes the pros can outweigh the cons (hopefully, often?). but whether it’s more love partners, or in monogamy, having more kids, the logistics, time balancing, juggling different wants and needs, and the communication required multiplies considerably for me. exponentially.
perhaps that’s a “feature” of the people i’ve chosen and the kids i’ve had. but i’m not sure that the workload of “more people” could really be comparable to my past history of the much-lower workload of just two people in love, with just one kid. could be just me though.
that said…
“So, on those occasions when a relationship falls apart, it just doesn’t make one whit of sense why people would blame the shatter on the fact that there are more than two adults involved.”
absolutely! wouldn’t that be like saying that my past break-ups (with guys) are a sure sign that heterosexuality cannot work? that i really should realize that being a lesbian is the thing to do?
“The problem is with one or more of the people involved, or their personal issues, or some incompatibility between two or more members of a group.”
my (thoroughly unproven) theory is that most issues are based on not knowing my self well enough to clearly identify and convey (within my self and to others) my own principles, wants, criteria, deal-breakers, needs, and priorities and to use that self-knowledge well as i choose people to become involved with.
when something doesn’t work out, it feels bad and can seem like a lack in the other person. and although that can be the case, more often than not, the times i’ve hit bumps have been when i haven’t adequately identified and clarified something important inside of myself. i haven’t fine-tuned my “picker” well enough? when real life doesn’t meet my (unknown-till-then) expectations, it’s time to look inside me. surprisingly, it’s not about monogamy, polyamory, or my heterosexuality that isn’t working. the common denominator is me.
in spite of my theory being completely unproven, i’m prioritizing criteria and introspection and self-knowledge with my kids and their friends who will tolerate discussion. they might or might not opt to implement these concepts in their lives, but their opting out will not be from a lack of being exposed to the concept of the value of knowing them selves well. meanwhile, i keep introspecting myself to get better at this. a lifetime work in progress!
DDA says: “Um, if it’s the people involved, the fact that there are *more* people involved sounds like it can be very much a factor.”
It’s true that three assholes are more trouble than two, but this is because they are assholes — not because there is some intrinsic reason why three is bad.
“It’s not that it is *popular*, it is that some people want to distinguish it from other types of violence.”
There are so many cases that there is seen a need to give it a special name to distinguish it from other sorts of violence. Many cases = popular, as in there’s a large populous.
As far as the use of “popular” as a synonym for “hip and fun and everyone’s doing it,” well, there must be SOMETHING rewarding about it if so many people are doing it.
CptPyjamas says: “…it is highly embarrassing to admit to being wrong, it is less embarrassing to stubbornly cling to your wrongness and shout louder about it to cover your mistake. Weird but it’s true.”
This would be a great thing for us to leave behind with stone tools and cave dwellings.
“I think it’s about teamwork. You get a group of people together and it’s easier to problem-solve. If you’re always in an argument in a “normal” couple, well, you blame the other person. If there’s three, four, five, of you, and every argument involves you, it’s so much harder to hide from the fact that you are the problem (I speak from experience).”
It’s still about the people — a group of five assholes is much more assholey than one asshole — and a group of five saints is (well, probably) more saintly than one saint. neither good nor bad associated with the number.
Each individual contributes their own element to a group.
It’s great when that’s a fairly positive contribution.
Summer says: “So if any poly relationship fails it’s because it’s more than two adults, does that mean if any marriage fails it’s because it IS (just) two adults? In other words, yes, I agree, the reasoning is flawed.”
I’ve seen the same flawed reasoning used when people in restrictive-sexuality relationships (such as monogamy) interact with others that aren’t and are told “Gee, if you were like us, then you wouldn’t have HAD this problem!”
This is a little more subtle, but it’s still suggesting there’s some value in the head-count.
Hoist on our OWN petard, sometimes, yes?
livingtotears says: “hmm… speaking only for myself, my experience has been that more people IS more difficult.”
It certainly sounds as if you’ve never seen a white pigeon, but they’re out there. It helps knowing that. I’m one of them, for example.
“absolutely! wouldn’t that be like saying that my past break-ups (with guys) are a sure sign that heterosexuality cannot work? that i really should realize that being a lesbian is the thing to do?”
Yep — same crap logic, plus I added a few more examples above.
“in spite of my theory being completely unproven, i’m prioritizing criteria and introspection and self-knowledge with my kids and their friends who will tolerate discussion. they might or might not opt to implement these concepts in their lives, but their opting out will not be from a lack of being exposed to the concept of the value of knowing them selves well. meanwhile, i keep introspecting myself to get better at this.”
That’ll help with a LOT of problems, you bet!
Gotta watch out for the tricky ones, though.
just clarifying here…
i DO believe in white pigeons; i’ve even seen some. (i assumed you were one too; good to have the confirmation. smiles.)
i was truly speaking just for myself that more people has been more work. but i’m signing up for more-love, more work or not! i think the real and potential benefits are worth the extra work, and if the balance doesn’t play out that way, i’ll look further into myself, at the people i’ve chosen, and the connected dynamics and choices i’ve made to see what might be tweaked, revised, or changed significantly to improve things.
(in spite of my own experience, i’m agreeing with you. just doing a hell of a confusing job at that!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
about being wrong…
for me, i figure there are so many options and people in life that it’s more likely that i’ll be wrong about many things than it is likely i’ll be right about many things. for me, times where a person or situation can show me how/where i’ve been wrong are mostly happy ah-ha! moments.
with the assumption that i’m mostly wrong, i do what i can anyway to live and love in ways that seem sensible and in alignment with who i am. when new information becomes available to me, i have this golden opportunity to re-align my perceptions, theories, and associated behaviors as applicable.
people pay tons of money to counselors, self-help books and workshops, etc. specifically to learn new ways of thinking, feeling, communicating, and behaving. when i get precious clue-by-fours from friends, family, acquaintances, discussion lists, etc. about where and how i might be wrong, or ideas about how to do better, it’s FREE self-help. woot!
(so even if i’d never seen a white pigeon, i’d seriously be re-considering my past paradigms once you told me you’ve seen them. even more so once i hear you ARE one. smiles.)