This feed contains the 10 most recent pages in the "faq" category.

Sometimes, I will post something that's an answer to "what is" questions. Those end up having this tag, and possibly other related tags.

There's an argument that in polyamory, you can't reach the same depth as in monoamory.

Just as with a similar argument about love, this seems to view "depth" as one finite element.

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.

So what if, in a polyamorous relationship, person A shares elements x and y with person B and elements z and t with person C. Does that mean less depth than if person A had first had a relationship with person B (sharing elements x and y), and later on had a relationship with person B (sharing elements z and t)? 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?

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 Eva, one of the deepest monoamorous relationships I've been in.

Posted Apr 2, 2009 11:33:30 PM +0200 | Tags: faq

There's an argument that polyamory isn't real love, for one can really love only one.

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".

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.

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 you know that what you feel is love?

Posted Apr 2, 2009 11:33:18 PM +0200 | Tags: faq

[Relationship Anarchy, although not something I've adopted for myself (yet?), has a number of points that are still worth looking at]

[This text comes from an unknown contributor in New Zealand. It was presented to me in a forum I'm a member of]

Relationship Anarchy

You can love a lot of people -- each relationship is unique

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.

Love and Respect is to have no demands

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.

Give yourself a solid point of view

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.

Remember the heterosexual norm but don't be afraid

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.

Spontaneity instead of duty

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!

Fake it 'til you make it

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!

Trust is better than being suspicious

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.

Change through communication

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!

Posted Feb 5, 2009 12:09:32 PM +0100 | Tags: faq

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.

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.

(Maybe the questions aren't asked so frequently in real life. It doesn't matter so much for this blog, though ;-))

Posted Feb 5, 2009 12:08:51 PM +0100 | Tags: faq

To see all of them, check the archive-faq.

blog comments powered by Disqus