Fear, Love, Relationships, and Rules

[bookofmirrors]

A while back, I joined Model Mayhem, with an eye towards meeting up with photographers or whatever to get my fix for being art. I've only ended up meeting so far with one of the photographers who's contacted me (local guy, we have an outdoor shoot today, weather permitting), but I've engaged in dialogue with several, and I've made what seems to be a pretty strong connection to one in particular. He lives far away, and isn't particularly in control of his travel schedule, so he's not sure when he'll be in my area again, but we have plans to get together for the usual let's-meet-in-a-coffee-shop-and-make-sure-no-one-is-a-murdering-rapist get-to-know-you vibe-acquiring meeting. (I'm a stickler for safety.)

In the meantime, we've emailed, forumed, IMed, and talked on the phone. (Yeah, I know. Me on the phone, right?) And it became pretty clear pretty quickly that this rather unbidden mutual attraction was forming. And that when we met, something more than taking pretty pictures would be on both our minds.

Well, that brings a whole other dynamic into the situation, obviously. Because at the point someone has the potential to become more than a friend, the arrangement that BlckwngdOrcl and I have is that we get to meet anyone our spouse plans to have a sexual relationship with. Our "rules" of engagement have changed somewhat over time, but that one's pretty much always been there. We recently added the caveat that a phone call would be sufficient for a one-night-stand in special circumstances (mostly something like gathers, or cons), but possible relationships involving sex require a meeting. We've agreed this is a common-sense precaution to prevent the other person from "thinking with their dick" and getting into a bad relationship.

Except this guy doesn't want to meet BlckwngdOrcl.

There's a reason behind it, which hasn't been fully explained to me. Something about a similar situation in his past, that involved a couple in a BDSM relationship, if I understand it correctly. He thought at first that this was a dynamic in my marriage, since I'm a submissive by nature, but even when I told him that wasn't the case, he still has no interest in (my paraphrase) jumping through our hoops. Now, normally, this would be a huge red flag for me. And to some degree, it is. But prior to this, he's always been extremely respectful and reasonable. Hell, he's STILL being both those things and more. He even agrees it's a good idea to have that rule, and that he understands if the whole thing is a dealbreaker.

We've both found, though, that when we take the possibility of sex out of the equation, the energy between us just dies. Even the photography energy. Which is weird, really, and not something I've experienced before. And when the energy does flow between us, it's really strong, and has a sacred feeling to it. So it's not something I'm willing to dismiss offhand.

I would probably have come to that conclusion, regardless, if it weren't for him saying something about exploring why we had that rule to begin with, and what fears might be surrounding it.

And, of course, since my knee-jerk reaction to that was the idea that of course there was no fear involved, we were just trying to keep each other safe (ahem), it become obvious he'd hit on something there....





It took me several days before I was able to look at this without that knee-jerk reaction. The very fact I was resisting the idea so much was annoying, because I know what it means when I resist things. Great. Another fuckin' learning experience.

*sigh*

So finally, I hunkered down and tried to wrap my head around it. Why *did* we have that rule? I mean, we're both adults, and we both have excellent intuitive skills. Hell, we're so connected either of us would probably feel whatever vibe was to be felt through the other person whether we actually met the other's potential lover in person or not. And we've both navigated the singles scene in the past without becoming killed, and yeah, we've both had our hearts broken, but really, who hasn't?

If the rule was in place to vouchsafe the other's physical safety, it indicated a deplorable lack of faith in each other to be able to navigate the world without pulling the relationship equivalent of a Darwin Award. I already had a bunch of tried-and-true methods to keep creepy people away from me, not the least of which is an ability to read people extremely well over a computer, which pretty much weeds out anyone I don't want to be around to begin with. (Actually, I don't think anyone who's ever gotten so far as meeting me has "failed" any additional "tests" of their sanity and safety, etc..) But I was always careful. Meet in a public place. Have a time limit. Someone knows where you are and when to expect you home and will call the cops if you're not there. Code words. Meeting someone from the internet is a lot more common now, and probably not nearly as dangerous as the media would have you believe, but it never hurts to be sure. These things probably aren't as important for guys, but still not a bad idea. If BlckwngdOrcl hadn't done those things in the past, he certainly didn't have any objection to doing them now.

So, we've established we're both intelligent, reasonably cautious adults. So why do we have to look out for each other? I mean, sure, there's something to having someone have your back, but after thinking it over, it became clear it wasn't really necessary. In fact, I was more concerned about BlckwngdOrcl's ability to work his way around that, since he can be horribly obtuse when a woman (or a man) is attracted to him, and he doesn't have the same amount of dating experience that I do. But still, it's pretty fucking unlikely he's gonna get knifed by someone he meets over drinks/coffee.

So. Physical safety angle turns out to be complete bullshit. No meeting required.

Well, what about emotional safety? I mean, it sucks to be in a relationship that ends badly, or even just ends. No one wants to do it. No one wants to see someone they love go through it. The idea that we could be protected from that sort of thing is tempting and appealing. The idea that we could be the knight in shining armor for someone else and save them from that pain is also appealing... even moreso if you happen to have a co-dependent streak. Which, as anyone who's been following this LJ (or me) for a long time, knows I do. And, while it's appealing to have a big protector, I also have a strong independent streak. If I feel strongly about something, I want to make my own mistakes, thankyouverymuch. And I'm entirely too philosophical about "bad" things to be completely devastated very often, and when I am, it's not for very long. I'm usually exploring how I contributed to the situation, what lessons were learned from it, how I would want to handle such a thing in the future, etc.. I have yet to find a situation that didn't (eventually) have a silver lining, no matter how painful it was at the time. And I've certainly always gained a better perspective on life and on myself as a result. I'm happy to have a shoulder to cry on, and I'm happy to listen to insights, but when it comes down to it, I pretty much like to do what I like to do. I'm more drawn to the codependent side of the equation, where I'm "saving" BlckwngdOrcl from himself. I try really hard not to do that, but it's a constant struggle. I have to constantly keep reminding myself that just because he habitually exudes "victim" energy, I don't have to be drawn into it. I don't have to rush to his rescue. It's insulting to him, and exhausting to me. And it's hard, but in the end, when you break this whole facet of the rule down, it becomes clear that protecting the other person isn't about saving them from emotional pain.

Strike two. Emotional safety of the other person angle also complete bullshit. Let's move on, shall we?

Quickie check-in on physical safety as it relates to pregnancy/STDs. Crazy screening process. Condoms. Don't fuck when I can get pregnant. Don't be with anyone for whom you think those rules apply to begin with.

Strike three. That one was never on the table, but in case it came up, it was never an issue. We're both crazy careful about that. But we're also both so in tune about it that it would never be brought up as an issue to begin with. We certainly advise, but again, it doesn't require a meeting.

OK, so there's no good reason for this meet-the-partner rule to exist. Is there?

Then why does the idea of dropping the rule scare the shit out of me?

BlckwngdOrcl can figure out his own motivation in his own LJ (or wherever). Regardless of the pronouns I end up using during stream of consciousness, I'm talking about me here.

And, after much mental hemhawing and exploring, I finally figured it out. I wasn't protecting BlckwngdOrcl. I was protecting me. I was protecting my marriage. (At least that was the plan.)

I toss around the term polyamory, because it's close enough to what I do, and it's the most common word used and is easily understandable by anyone I want to understand it. I think it was Isarma who pointed out once that what I do is more like polyfuckery. I think it's kind of a gray area between the two. If I really connect with you as a friend/person, I become attracted to you sexually. How that plays out ends up being agreed upon mutually, of course, but pretty much, if I like and have a strong connection to you (which usually is love, although not necessarily of the romantic variety), I'm probably interested in having sex with you. And in staying your friend, and deepening the friendship.

But, really, when I sit around and think about it, the idea of TRUE polyamory (if there is such a thing) scares the hell outta me. I love my husband. I love marriage. I don't want anything to threaten it. And much as I have daydreams about running off with various lovers after I've collected the life insurance money, I really don't want anything to come in the way of my relationship with my husband. Having my marriage as a PRIMARY relationship feels safe to me. It's my foundation. Hell, the one time a long-time lover asked if I would drop everything and come to him, my one caveat was that I could bring my husband (and my cats, of course). I've never had to make that choice, nothing has ever gotten that deep, but I strongly suspect that if a relationship came along that threatened that, I would drop it in favor of my bird in the hand. (Hell, as I write this, I'm not sure I haven't done this already, but that's the subject for a whole 'nother set of pondering.) And I *SURE* as hell don't want me husband to get involved in what Tacit calls game-changers... it terrifies me at least twice as much as getting involved in one myself!

So, I think, while ostensibly scoping out potential mates for things like homicidal tendencies, don't-stick-your-dick-in-crazy, and y'know, scurvy... what I'm really on the lookout for is "can this person be reasonably expected to take my husband away from me".

Of course, this is further complicated by the fact that what BlckwngdOrcl practices is a lot closer to "true" polyamory, in that he really has to love someone before he seriously considers sex with them - all fantasies about Catherine Zeta Jones or whoever aside. He's much more likely to get caught up in the NRE and want his current lover to move in with us, whereas I'm much more likely to come home high from the NRE and want BlckwngdOrcl even more. The opposite has been true, also, of course, but usually it's him wanting to make a more emotional connection. So there's some (small) basis for my fear.

(As an aside, there's a history where I've been burned in just this kind of situation... so my fear is understandable. But that doesn't make it reasonable.)

I'm still working out what kind of person I want to be in relation to the idea of deal-changers, etc.. In theory, I can't say I'm opposed. But when it gets too close, it's entirely too frightening. But that bit of contemplation isn't the subject of today's discussion.

OK... so now I've figured out what I'm afraid of. Great. Now what?

Well... what if one went into a relationship without the fear? Not necessarily a polyamorous relationship. But any relationship. If your choices weren't based on fear, how would you make choices surrounding the relationship?

What if we made choices that honored the relationship? That honored your partner(s)?

What kind of choices would I make in that case?

Well, first of all, I'd trust my husband's judgment. And I'd express my expectations and desires clearly (well, as clearly as I usually do *g* ...more on that later, maybe), so he'd have all the information he'd need to make his own choices. Not based on what I want, but based on what kind of person he chooses to be. I wouldn't have to "approve" his dates, or what he does on them. And I have to say, just writing that down still scares me. I still want very much for a "rule" to be in place that says "No Falling In Love And Leaving Me!!!!" But I don't like my life or my actions to be based on fear, either. I'd trust him to have "the sex talk", to wear a condom, and to talk with me about his relationship(s). I'm sure there are other things, but I'm still thinking in terms of the limited situation that brought the subject up to begin with, and this is quite a large enough chunk for now, thanks. :)

What about me? What choices would I make for myself that I feel would honor the relationship? Well, in the Do Unto Others... category, I'd still want to keep him abreast of any and all relationships. That just seems like the Right Thing To Do. I mean, if he doesn't know, it stops being polyamory and becomes cheating. Bad idea. I still want to honor our relationship as the Primary relationship. I want first dibs on his spend-with-others time, within reason. Just because I'm starting to recognize my fears that prompt the desire for designating my marriage as a Primary relationship doesn't necessarily mean I want to change it. At least not yet. Let's stick with one paradigm-changing revelation at a time, shall we?

But... let's get back to the reason this got brought up at all. Would I feel the need to parade my lovers to BlckwngdOrcl, so as to get his approval? So as to be assured he's not going to reject me later when he finds out who I'm seeing? So as to be assured that he's really OK with the whole thing when he's in the same room as someone who's going to (as most of society would see it) take, even temporarily, what's his? (I have background with this last situation, as well.)

I think I have to go with PopFiend on this one: It depends. If it's for those reasons, then no. That's all part of what I'm discovering is a set of fear-based behaviors, and I intend to weed those out.

But...

My husband is an important part of my life, and I like sharing things with him. I love talking to him, bouncing ideas off of him, letting him see what I see, and looking at things through his eyes. So, in that sense... if a relationship became really important to me... I'd want to share it with him. I'd want two people I love to be able to meet each other, find some common ground, that sort of thing. It might not work out. Hell, they might hate each other. But I'd still want to see it happen, to give it a shot. Under these circumstances, though, it wouldn't have to be at the beginning of a relationship. It might... but it wouldn't have to. I'd want to share my joy with BlckwngdOrcl, not my fears. And I'd want to share with the person of that burgeoning important relationship the relationship I value most. That feels right... there's a sense of peace and right-ness as I write that.

I think there was more to this post. But when I hit that point of "peace and right-ness" in a post, all the angst that prompted the damn post to begin with kinda melts away, and I lose my train of thought. I might remember more and post more later. I might not.

Comments are welcomed. I have a fabulous friendslist of hyperintelligent, insightful people, many of whom I've watched go through similar processes on their roads through polyamory. I'd love to hear thoughts on this one.



P.S. The funny thing is, I did, in fact, read this post by the brilliant Tacit back when he first posted it, and it struck me then... but not nearly as much as it's striking me now... Seems I needed a personal framework to tack it on for me to really grok the concept, even though I understood and agreed intellectually the first time around. Probably could have saved myself the trouble of writing my own post, if I had remembered his post at the beginning of writing this instead of at the end. :)
(And for the record, I have no idea how much of that post was floating around subconsciously in my mind as I was pondering this whole thing...)

But then, I wouldn't have learned anything, would I?