<p>ⓒ Richard Levitte</p>
http://journal.richard.levitte.org/tags/archive-faq/Richard Levitte's journalikiwiki2009-04-02T21:37:35ZPoly myths: No depth...http://journal.richard.levitte.org/entries/poly-myths-2/2009-04-02T21:37:35Z2009-04-02T21:33:30Z
<p>There's an argument that in polyamory, you can't reach the same
depth as in monoamory.</p>
<p>Just as with <a href="http://journal.richard.levitte.org/tags/archive-faq/../../entries/poly-myths-1/">a similar
argument about love</a>, this seems to view "depth" as <em>one</em>
<em>finite</em> element.</p>
<p>If you look more closely at what people place in "depth", you
will often see a multitude of elements, and you will also often see
that not all of those elements will be part of one relationship.
Some of those elements will not come up before the right person to
share them with comes along.</p>
<p>So what if, in a polyamorous relationship, person A shares
elements <em>x</em> and <em>y</em> with person B and elements
<em>z</em> and <em>t</em> with person C. Does that mean less depth
than if person A had first had a relationship with person B
(sharing elements <em>x</em> and <em>y</em>), and later on had a
relationship with person B (sharing elements <em>z</em> and
<em>t</em>)? And even if there are some elements of "depth" shared
with more than one person, does that have to mean that less of that
element is shared with each person (thus following the idea of a
finite element again)? And if that element was shared with just one
person, would it really automatically be shared more in depth with
that one?</p>
<p>This is another argument I call a myth. I base this mainly on my
own experience, where I can see just as much depth growing in my
current two relationships as I saw with <a href="http://journal.richard.levitte.org/people/EvB/" rel=
'friend ex-sweetheart met'>Eva</a>, one of the deepest monoamorous
relationships I've been in.</p>
Poly myths: Not really love...http://journal.richard.levitte.org/entries/poly-myths-1/2009-04-02T21:37:11Z2009-04-02T21:33:18Z
<p>There's an argument that polyamory isn't real love, for one can
really love only one.</p>
<p>One way to view this argument would be that "love" is a finite
element that, if divided among more than one, also becomes less in
each relationship, that it simply can't reach the "fullness it
deserves".</p>
<p>I do not agree with that notion, I can't view "love" as
something finite, to the point that I call the argument a myth. I
base this on experience that I share with others who've been both
on mono and poly relationships, that the love I feel on a
polyamorous relationship isn't much different in intensity from
what I've felt in monoamorous relationships.</p>
<p>Of course, there will be some that will argue that in that case,
I didn't really love in my monoamorous relationships either. If
you're one of those, I'd like to ask along with fellow poly people,
how <em>you</em> know that what <em>you</em> feel is love?</p>
What is Relationship Anarchy?http://journal.richard.levitte.org/entries/relationship-anarchy/2009-02-05T11:21:09Z2009-02-05T11:09:32Z
<p><em>[Relationship Anarchy, although not something I've adopted
for myself (yet?), has a number of points that are still worth
looking at]</em></p>
<p><em>[This text comes from an unknown contributor in New Zealand.
It was presented to me in a forum I'm a member of]</em></p>
<h2 id="relationshipanarchy">Relationship Anarchy</h2>
<p><strong>You can love a lot of people -- each relationship is
unique</strong></p>
<p>Relationship Anarchy (RA) questions the idea that love is a
special, limited feeling which is real only when kept between two
people at any given moment. It is possible to love more than one
person -- your relationship to one doesn't diminish the
relationships to the others. Don't value and compare -- appreciate
each other! No one needs to be highlighted as a partner to make a
relationship "real". Every relationship stands on it's own, a
meeting between independent equals.</p>
<p><strong>Love and Respect is to have no demands</strong></p>
<p>Refraining from demands as a basis of an relationship is to show
respect towards other peoples independency and capability of taking
decisions in their own. You having feelings for others or a history
together doesn't give you the right to set rules or make demands.
Try instead to explore how you can develop a relationship without
disregarding each others essential values and opinions. Rather than
to compromise in every situation, make possible to make different
choices without letting that causing a crisis in the relationship.
Demandlessness is the only way to be completely sure that everyone
in a relationship is there of their own free will. It's not "real
love" to adjust to each other according to an existing
template.</p>
<p><strong>Give yourself a solid point of view</strong></p>
<p>How do you want others to treat you? And I mean everyone. What
are your premises and how do you define your boundaries? What kind
of people do you want to have around and how do you want your
relationships to be like? Find such a core point of view and work
with all your relationships according to it. Don't make any
exception to the rules or 'special cases' for different people to
prove that you really care for someone specific.</p>
<p><strong>Remember the heterosexual norm but don't be
afraid</strong></p>
<p>Remember that there is an incredibly powerful set of normative
beliefs telling you how life and real love should be. People will
wonder and question your relationships. Talk with the loved ones to
find escapes and tricks to avoid norms and rule that causes
problems. But remember to create positive alternatives and fight
for something, not just against the norm. Don't allow your
relationships to be driven by fear of societal norms.</p>
<p><strong>Spontaneity instead of duty</strong></p>
<p>To be able to be spontaneous -- to act without the fear of being
punished and without obligations -- is what makes radical
relationships come to life. Spontaneity is above all other the
opposite to duty. You would want a relationship where you spend
time with each other just because you want to, not out of a sense
of duty. Spontaneity is not about never planning ahead or thinking
before acting, its about building relationships without duties and
demands. Organize your relationships in a way so that they enable
spontaneousness!</p>
<p><strong>Fake it 'til you make it</strong></p>
<p>Sometimes it might sound like you have to be some kind of
übermensch to "stand life" as a relationship anarchy. It's not
true. Try using the trick "fake it 'til you make it", which means
that you imagine how you would have done in various difficult
situations if you were as strong and cool as you'd like. Make these
thoughts simple guidelines you use in situations where you feel too
weak. Talk to other people about how they handle things and never
blame yourself!</p>
<p><strong>Trust is better than being suspicious</strong></p>
<p>Assume that everyone near you wants you to be happy. The common
idea that egoism is the sole power driving human behaviour is
bullshit. You and others around you want to acknowledge and
communicate with each other but sometimes there is so much to be
dealt with in life that you don't have the energy to take care of
anyone but yourself. The better relationships and environments you
can create for yourself and others, the more time and energy you
can to spend on others and acknowledge one another. Give people
lots of opportunities to discuss with, explain, care for you and
take responsibility for the relationship but remember to take care
of yourself. Remember your personal boundaries.</p>
<p><strong>Change through communication</strong></p>
<p>Whenever people do something together there is a norm on how to
act and what to do -- a norm on how a the situation should turn
out. If you and people around you won't talk about the whats, hows
and whys, everything will turn out as the norm dictates.
Communication, common action and a will to change is the only way
to break free from the norms. Radical relationships must have open
discussions as their main component, not as a state of emergency.
Remember that trust is your most important tool. We are so used
that people never quite say what they actually mean, that we have
to search for and try to interpret what they're really after. These
assumptions are always based on societal norms or your previous
experiences, which isn't necessarily true in your relationship.
Talk to each other!</p>
A personal FAQhttp://journal.richard.levitte.org/entries/faq/2009-02-05T11:08:51Z2009-02-05T11:08:51Z
<p>There are times when I find myself answering "what is" or "why"
questions and want to write down the answer I got or came up
with.</p>
<p>Thinking about it, I thought that my blog could be a place as
good as any. So I've just now created a new tag for this, "faq".
I'll run with this for a bit, as an experiment, and see how that
works out for me.</p>
<p>(Maybe the questions aren't asked so frequently in real life. It
doesn't matter so much for this blog, though ;-))</p>